LI  B  R.AR.Y 

OF  THE 

UNIVERSITY 
Of    ILLINOIS 


ILLINOIS  HISTORICAL  SURVEY 


CENTRAL  CIRCULATION  AND  BCOKSTACKS 
The  person  borrowing  this  material  is  re- 
sponsible for  its  renewal  or  return  before 
the  Latest  Date  stamped  below.  You  may 
be  charged  a  minimum  fee  of  $75.00  for 
each  non-returned  or  lost  item. 

Theft,  mutilation,  or  defacement  of  library  materials  can  be 
causes  for  student  disciplinary  action.  All  materials  owned  by 
the  University  of  Illinois  Library  are  the  property  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  and  are  protected  by  Article  16B  of  //linois  Criminal 
Law  and  Procedure. 

TO  RENEW,  CALL  (217)  333-8400. 
University  of  Illinois  Library  at  Urbana-Champaign 


JUL  03  19S9 


When  renewing  by  phone,  write  new  due  date 
below  previous  due  date.  L162 


&v4f^£, 


J^ti ,  /ciy^C 


* 


Si 


r 


fa/ 
//^ 


MESSAGE 


OF  HIS  EXCELLENCY, 


KICHABD    TA.TES, 


GOVERNOR  OF  ILLINOIS, 


TO   THE 


GENERAL  ASSEMBLY, 


JANUARY  2,  1865 


SPRINGFIELD! 

BAKES  &  PHILLIPS,  PRINTERS. 

1865. 


336-A 


MESSAGE  . 


Gentlemen  of  the  General  Assembly  : 

INTRODUCTION. 

In  delivering  to  you  the  last  message  which  it  devolves  upon  me, 
as  the  executive  of  the  State,  to  communicate  to  the  General  As- 
sembly, I  feel  it  to  be  our  first  duty  to  render  thanks  to  Almighty 
God  for  the  continued  protection  and  goodness  of  his  Providence, 
for  the  abounding  blessings  with  which  He  has  favored  us  as  a 
State,  and  for  the  continuance  to  us,  unimpaired,  the  possession 
and  enjoyment  of  our  civil  and  religious  liberty.  For  though  a 
sad  and  waasting  war  has  prevailed  in  the  land,  and  thousands 
of  homes  and  hearthstones  have  been  made  desolate,  our  gov- 
ernment has  been  preserved  to  us,  our  nationality  has  been  main- 
tained unbroken,  and  our  free  institutions  have  come  out  of  the 
shock  of  battle,  not  only  not  destroyed,  or  impaired,  but  stronger, 
and  dearer  to  us  than  ever  before.  The  storms  of  revolution, 
which  have  so  rudely  beat  around  the  tree  of  liberty,  have  served 
only  to  deepen  its  roots  and  strengthen  its  trunk,  and  the  people 
at  home  stand  reassured  with  new  and  unfaltering  confidence  in 
our  institutions,  while  foreign  nationalities  are  forced  to  pay  the 
tribute  of  involuntary  respect  to  a  people  who,  true  to  the  memo- 
ries and  traditions  of  their  fathers,  and  faithful  to  the  sacred  trust 
of  liberty  committed  to  their  care,  stand  unappalled  by  the  dark 
events  of  the  gigantic  war  in  which  they  have  been  engaged. 

As  a  State,  notwithstanding  the  war,  we  have  prospered  beyond 
all  former  precedents.  Notwithstanding  nearly  two  hundred  thou- 
sand of  the  most  athletic  and  vigorous  of  our  population  have  been 


withdrawn  from  the  field  of  production,  the  area  of  land  now  under 
cultivation  is  greater  than  at  any  former  period,  and  the  census  of 
1865  will  exhibit  an  astonishing  increase  in  every  department  of 
material  industry  and  advancement ;  in  a  great  increase  of  agricul- 
tural, manufacturing  and  mechanical  wealth  ;  in  new  and  improved 
modes  for  production  of  every  kind ;  in  the  substitution  of  ma- 
chinery for  the  manual  labor  withdrawn  by  the  war;  in  the 
triumphs  of  invention ;  in  the  wonderful  increase  of  railroad  enter- 
prise; in  the  universal  activity  of  business,  in  all  its  branches;  in 
the  rapid  growth  of  our  cities  and  villages ;  in  the  bountiful  har- 
vests, and  in  an  unexampled  material  prosperity,  prevailing  on 
every  hand ;  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  educational  institutions 
of  the  people  have  in  no  way  declined.  Our  colleges  and  schools, 
of  every  class  and  grade,  are  in  the  most  flourishing  condition ; 
our  benevolent  institutions,  State  and  private,  are  kept  up  and 
maintained  ;  and,  in  a  word,  our  prosperity  is  as  complete  and 
ample  as  though  no  tread  of  armies  or  beat  of  drum  had  been  heard 
in  all  our  borders. 

I  submit  herewith  a  statement  of  the  permanent  debt,  funded 
and  unfunded,  of  the  State. 

There  has-been  purchased  and  paid  off  by  the  State,  with  the 
Central  Railroad  Fund,  from  December  1,  1862,  to  December  15, 
1864,  State  indebtedness,  as  follows : 

Principal $875,988  41 

Interest,  arrears  of  interest,  etc 30,158  98 

$906,147  39 

10  per  cent,  paid  on  registered  canal  bonds,  by 
Canal  Trustees,  installments  July,  1863  and  July 
1864,  5  per  cent,  each 289,133  33 

$1,195,280  72 


PERMANENT   DE»T,   FUNDED   AND   UNFUNDED. 

Statement,  showing  amount  of  different  classes  of  State  indebt- 
edness outstanding,  Dec.  16,  1864  : 

Illinois  Bank  and  Internal  Improvement  stock,. . . .        $31,000  00 

Illinois  Internal  Improvement  stock, 42,000  00 

Internal  Improvement  scrip, 19,570  33 

Liquidation  bonds, ,,..,....  ^,        234,650  21 


New  Internal  Improvement  stock 1,848,407  85 

Interest  bonds,  1847, 1,206,836  96 

Interest  stock,  1857, 701,404  75 

Two  certificates  for  arrears  of  interest, 1002  58 

Kefunded  stock, 1,837,000  00 

Normal  University  bonds, 65,000  00 

Thornton  Loan  bonds,  (act  app.  Feb.  21,  1861},. , .  182,000  00 

Balance  Canal  claims,  under  Thornton  Loan  act, . .  3624  58 

War  bonds, 1,679,100  00 

Illinois  and  Michigan  Canal  bonds,  payable  in  New 

York, 1,618,000  00 

Illinois    and   Michigan  Canal    bonds,  payable   in 

London, 1,631,688  89 

Interest  certificates,  Canal  stock,  not  registered, . .  17,661  33 

Canal  scrip,  signed  by  Governor, 2616  97 

121  Macallister  and  Stebbins  bonds,  which,  accord- 
ing to  statement  of  C.  Macallister,  would  amount, 

Jan.  1,  1865,  to  about 57,000  00 

$11,178,564  45 

STATE    DEBT. 

Since  December  1,  1862,  in  addition  to  the  regular  semi-annual 
payments  of  accruing  interest  on  the  State  debt,  the  following 
amounts  have  been  liquidated,  with  the  proceeds;  of  the  fund  de- 
rived from  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad,  viz : 

Refunded  stock  of  1860,  redeemed  under  the  Gover- 
nor's proclamation  of  September  28, 1863,  including 
accrued  interest  on  the  same, , $68,507  50 

State  bonds,  purchased  at  par,  canceled  and  deposited 
with  the  Auditor,  the  principal  and  interest  of 
which  amount  to , 706,182  12 

Scrip,  coupons,  etc.,  paid  off  at  par,  under  the  act  of 

February  22, 1861, 23,643  36 

Amount  of  principal  and  interest  extinguished  with 
the  Central  Railroad  fund,  from  December  1, 1862. 
to  November  30,  1864, , , '  $798,332  98 

In  addition  to  this,  a  further  amount  of  $107,815  42,  of  the 
same  fund,  has  been  used  in  the  purchase  of  State  indebtedness, 
since  December  1st,  making,  in  the  whole,  $906,148  40  of  the 
public  debt  extinguished  in  a  little  over  two  years.  The  amount 
derived  from  the  two-mill  tax,  on  the  assessment  of  the  year  1863, 


6 

applicable  to  dividend  on  State  indebtedness,  presented  to  the 
Auditor  January  1st,  1865,  is  some  six  hundred  thousand  dollars. 
This,  added  to  the  amount  extinguished  with  the  Central  Railroad 
fund,  makes  an  aggregate  of  one  and  a  half  millions  of  payment  on 
the  debt  of  the  State,  since  December  1,  1862.  And  the  indica- 
tions of  increased  receipts  from  the  Central  Railroad,  and  from  the 
two-mill  tax,  are  such  as  to  warrant  the  belief  that  at  least  one 
million  of  dollars,  per  annum,  will  be  hereafter  realized  from  these 
two  sources. 

RECEIPTS   FROM   THE    CENTRAL   RAILR6AD. 

The  amount  received  from  the  Central  Railroad,  for  the  seven 
per  cent,  on  the  gross  earnings  of  said  company,  of  the  past  two 
years,  has  been  as  follows  : 

For  the  six  months  ending  April  30,  1863 $126,634  83 

For  the  six  months  ending  October  31,  1863 173,759  75 

For  the  six  months  ending  April  30,  1864 170,055  08 

For  the  six  months  ending  October  31,  1864 235,458  96 

$705,908  62 


It  will  be  seen  that  the  amount  received  for  per  centage  on  the 
earnings  of  *f  864  is  more  than  one-third  larger  than  that  for  1863. 

REVENUE RECEIPTS   AND   EXPENDITURES. 

The  receipts  into  the  treasury  for  revenue  purposes,  for  two 
years,  ending  November  30,  1864,  have  been  $497,616  11 ;  of 
which  amount  $109,547  64  was  received  for  tax  levied  in 
the  year  1862,  and  $315,088  46  for  tax  levied  in  the  year  1863 ; 
the  remainder  of  the  amount  received  being  from  miscellaneous 
sources.  The  amount  in  the  treasury,  December  1,  1862,  was 
$374,697  19,  which,  added  to  the  amount  received,  makes  an 
aggregate  of  $872,303  30. 

The  amount  of  warrants  drawn  against  this  fund,  from  Decem- 
ber 1,  1862,  to  November  30, 1864,  is  $884,014  07,  and  the  amount 
of  the  same  outstanding,  unpaid  December  1,  1864,  as  appears 
from  the  Auditor's  report,  was  $20,510  98.  It  will  be  seen  that  a 
continuation  of  the  expenditures,  in  the  same  ratio,  as  for  the  past 
two  years,  and  of  the  receipts  from  taxation,  as  for  the  collection 
for  1863,  will  result  in  a  deficiency  of  the  receipts,  as  Compared 


with  the  expenditures,  of  more  than  one  hundred  thousand  dollars 
per  annum  ;^and  this,  without  considering  the  greatly  •  enhanced 
prices  necessary  to  bo  paid  for  all  articles  purchased  for  the  use  of 
the  State,  and  of  all  services  rendered,  except  such  as  the  compen- 
sation for  which  is  fixed  in  amount. 

The  rate  of  tax  now  levied  for  revenue  purposes  is  one  and  one- 
fifth  mill  on  the  dollar  of  valuation,  producing,  for  the  year  1863, 
(as  before  stated)  $315,088  46  of  actual  receipts  at  the  treasury, 
whilst  one-half  of  the  amount  expended  in  two  years  will  be  found 
to  be  $442,007  48. ^  The  conclusion  is  obvious  that  an  increase  of 
taxation  or  a  reduction  of  expenditures  is  of  absolute  necessity. 

COLLECTION   OF   TAXES. 

The  act  of  the  last  General  Assembly  authorizing  the  collection 
of  taxes  in  legal  tender  notes  and  postal  currency  expired,  by  limi- 
tation, on  the  1st  of  January,  1865,  thus  leaving  the  act  of  1853  in 
force ;  which  act  requires  payment  of  taxes  in  gold  and  silver.  I 
presume  that  no  argument  'is  needed  to  show  that  a  re-enactment 
of  the  lawu  authorizing  payment  of  taxes  in  United  States  notes  is 
a,  matter  not  only  of  public  policy  but  of  absolute  necessity. 

APPROPRIATION  ACT 'OF  FEBRUARY  14,  1863. 

The  act  of  the  last  General  Assembly,  approved  February  14, 
1863,  entitled  "An  act  to  provide  for  the  ordinary  and  contingent 
expenses  of  the  government  until  the  adjournment  of  the  next 
regular  session  of  the  General  Assembly,"  and  containing  pro- 
visions for  the  payment  of  the  incidental  and  contingent  expenses 
of  the  government  and  of  the  different  State  departments,  clerk 
hire  of  the  different  State  officers,  etc.,  and  in  aid  of  sick  and 
wounded  Illinois  soldiers,  has  been  pronounced  by  the  Supreme 
Court  to  be  void.  *;  Previous  to  the'rendering  of  this  decision  several 
warrants  had  been  issued  by  the  Auditor,  for  purposes  contem- 
plated by  said  act ;  none  of  which  have  been  paid.  In  fact,  the 
(decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  was  rendered  in  suits  brought 
against  the  Treasurer,  with  the  view  of  compelling  him  to  make 
payment  of  said  warrants.  Alljthese  warrants  were  regularly 
issued  by  the  Auditor,  on  accounts  lor  services  actually  rendered 
and  articles  actually  furnished ;  and  all  of  the  same  should  right- 


8 

fully  be  paid.  The  aggregate  amount  of  such  warrants  is  less  than 
seven  thousand  dollars.  The  cost  of  clerk  hire  and  incidental  ex- 
penses of  the  several  State  departments  have  been  borne  by  the 
State  officers,  from  private  means,  for  the  past  two  years  ;  and  I 
would  therefore  recommend  the  re-enactment  of  the  law,  with  a 
provision  legalizing  the  warrants  outstanding,  and  requiring  the 
State  Treasurer  to  treat  the  same,  in  all  respects,  in  like  manner 
with  warrants  issued  under  other  laws. 

It  will  be  recollected,  in  this  connection,  that  in  June,  1863,  a 
disagreement  having  occurred  between  the  two  Houses  of  the 
the  General  Assembly  as  to  the  time  of  adjournment,  I  availed 
myself  of  the  power  vested  in  me  by  the  constitution,  to  prorogue 
them.  Seeing,  as  I  supposed,  a  disposition  to  embarrass  the 
government  in  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  and  a  refusal  to  make 
the  necessary  appropriations  to  carry  on  the  State  government,  and 
provide  aid  for  the  relief  of  our  sick  and  wounded  soldiers,  and 
also  to  interfere  with  the  prerogatives  of  the  State  Executive,  I 
deemed  it  my  duty  to  avail  myself  of  the  contingency  which  the 
constitution  placed  in  my  hands,  of  rescuing  our  noble  State  from 
obloquy,  by  a  prorogation  of  the  General  Assembly.  It  will  be 
seen,  however,  that  such  a  necessity,  and  the  subsequent  decision 
of  the  Supreme  Court,  declaring  the  said  law,  making  the  contin- 
gent appropriations  aforesaid  void,  devolved  upon  the  State 
authorities  the  alternative  of  raising  the  means  necessary  to  carry 
on  the  government,  by  advances  from  private  citizens,  which  would 
necessarily  be  large,  by  reason  of  greatly  increased  service  and 
expenditures  in  every  department  of  the  government,  growing  out 
of  the  complications  of  the  war.  I  therefore  recommend  the  re- 
enactment  of  the  said  law,  with  a  clause  for  adjusting  and  paying 
all  accounts  for  expenditures  incurred,  as  above  stated,  to  be  audited 
by  the  Auditor,  and  warrants  issued,  upon  the  approval  of  the 
Governor. 

I  herewith  submit  a  report  of  the  expenses  incurred  in  my  office, 
and  other  necessary  expenses,  incurred  according  to  the  intent  of 
said  appropriation. 

Much  credit  is  due  to  liberal  and  patriotic  citizens  of  Chicago, 
Springfield  and  Knox  county,  for  advances  made  by  them  so  gen- 
erously to  the  State,  in  its  emergency. 


ARMY   AUDITING   BOARD. 

I  submit  herewith  the  final  report  of  the  Board  of  Army  Audi* 
tors,  appointed  under  the  "Act  creating  a  war  fund  and  to  provide 
for  auditing  all  accounts  and  disbursements  arising  under  the  call 
for  volunteers."  It  embodies  a  detailed  statement  showing  the 
dates  of  all  claims  filed,  names  of  the  parties  filing  the  same,  their 
amounts,  what  for,  and  amounts  allowed ;  also  the  amount  of  claims 
rejected,  suspended,  withdrawn,  barred,  etc.  The  report  is  valuable, 
and  should  be  published. 

BAKBED   WAR   ACCOUNTS. 

Under  the  fifth  section  of  the  act  of  May  2,  1861,  creating  a  war 
fund,  and  providing  for  auditing  accounts  of  war  expenses,  all 
claims  for  such  expenses  were  required  to  be  presented  for  adjust- 
ment within  three  months  from  the  accruing  of  the  same — in 
default  of  which,  such  accounts  were  required  to  be  "  considered 
donated  to  the  State,  and  not  thereafter  allowed,  under  any  pre-- 
tense  whatever."  This  provision  of  the  law  has,  in  many  instances^ 
worked  very  great  hardship.  Many  persons  furnished  articles, 
and  rendered  service,  in  utter  ignorance  of  this  provision  of  the 
law,  and  others  were  ordered  away  from  the  State,  in  the  military 
service,  and  had  not  the  opportunity  to  present  their  claims  until 
long  after  the  three  months  had  expired. 

The  Board  of  Commissioners,  wishing  to  do  all  that  lay  in  their 
power  to  facilitate  the  collection  of  claims  which  they  considered 
meritorious,  have  examined  and  passed  upon  a  considerable  num- 
ber of  such  claims,  and  have  stated  that  they  would  have  allowed 
the  same  for  payment,  but  for  the  limitation  made  in  the  law.  I 
would  recommend  that  the  Auditor  be  authorized  to  issue  warrants 
in  payment  of  such  accounts  as  were  so  passed  upon  by  the  Com- 
missioners, the  same  being  first  approved  by  the  Governor.  The 
accounts  so  passed  upon  are  now  on  file  in  the  Auditor's  office. 

THE   PHYSICAL   RESOURCES   OF   OUR   STATE. 

The  physical  resources  of  a  State  are  the  foundation  of  all  others. 

They  make  it  great  or  little.     They  shape  its  destiny.     They  even 

affect  its  moral  and  religious  character.     History  teaches  this  truth. 

All  the  great  nations  of  ancient  and  modern  times  demonstrate  it. 

—2 


10 

Egypt,  Syria,  Greece,  Kome ;  Great  Britain,  France,  the  United 
States,  are  so  many  proofs  that  favorable  physical  situations  and 
resources  are  absolutely  necessary  to  material  and  moral  develop- 
ment. Illinois,  in  this  respect,  stands  pre-eminent  among  the 
States  of  the  Union.  She  is  the  heart  of  the  Northwest.  In 
agricultural  resources  she  is  unsurpassed.  In  manufacturing  and 
commercial  facilities  she  has  no  superior.  On  the  east,  south  and 
west,  the  Great  River  of  the  continent  and  its  tributaries  water  her 
border  counties,  while  their  branches  penetrate  to  every  part  of  the 
State,  irrigating  her  soil,  draining  her  low  lands,  and  affording 
water  power  for  her  manufactures.  The  Illinois  river  runs  for 
over  two  hundred  miles  through  the  State,  from  northeast  to  south- 
west, forming  a  natural  highway  between  the  lakes  and  the  Missis- 
sippi, the  key  of  which  is  entirely  in  our  possession.  This  high- 
way is  one  of  the  most  important  of  the  physical  resources  of  the 
State ;  while,  in  a  military  point  of  view,  it  enables  us  to  dominate 
the  lakes  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Father  of  Waters  on  the  other. 
A  State,  holding  this  great  water-way,  must  always  be  a  power  on 
the  continent,  as  well  as  in  the  Union.  Then,  we  have,  on  the 
northeast,  an  outlet  to  the  ocean  through  the  great,  lakes,  those 
inland  seas  of  the  continent ;  while  that  one  of  them,  Michigan, 
which  laves  our  northeastern  border,  is  almost  land-locked,  and 
thus  the  least  liable  to  hostile  incursions  from  foreign  powers. 
This  secures  to  us  the  site  for  a  naval  depot,  for  dock-yards,  for  the 
building  and  repair  of  vessels,  for  foundries  for  cannon,  for  work- 
shops for  all  descriptions  of  war  material,  at  some  point  on  Lake 
Michigan,  between  the  Wisconsin  and  Indiana  State  lines.  Our 
State  is  also  on  the  direct  route  of  the  Pacific  railroad,  which  must 
intersect  it  from  east  to  west ;  thus  making  it  a  portion  of  the  great 
highway  between  Europe  and  the  Indies.  Then,  again,  all  our 
lines  of  communication,  from  the  interior  of  the  State  to  shipping 
points  connected  with  tide-water,  at  which  bulky  articles  of  mer- 
chandise or  agricultural  products  can  be  received  or  delivered,  are 
short.  This  saves  the  cost  of  lengthy  transportation  of  such  arti- 
cles by  railway,  which  must  always  be  expensive.  At  present,  in 
some  of  the  States  to  the  west  and  northwest  of  us,  large  quanti- 
ties of  grain  have  been  stored  on  the  navigable  rivers  for  the  last 
two  seasons.  On  account  of  low  water  it  cannot  be  sent  to  market 
by  steamboat,  while  the  cost  of  railway  transportation  would  eat 
up  its  value.  This  can  never  be  the  case  in  Illinois,  as  long  as 


11 

water  runs  in  the  Mississippi,  and  that  of  the  great  lakes  flows 
unobstructed  to  the  sea.  But  not  alone  do  we  possess  agricultural 
resources  of  an  almost  unlimited  character :  we  have  also  within 
the  limits  of  our  State,  facilities  for  manufactures,  which  equal 
those  of  nearly  all  the  other  States  of  the  Union  combined.  Be- 
neath the  surface  of  our  blooming  prairies  and  beautiful  woodlands 
are  millions  of  tons  of  coal,  easy  of  access,  close  to  the  great  cen- 
ters of  commerce  and  manufactures,  on  great  navigable  rivers,  and 
intersected  by  railway  facilities  of  the  best  description. 

Illinois,  in  1860,  was  the  fourth  State  in  the  Union'in  the  num- 
ber of  tons  of  coal  produced.  But  what  has  been  produced^bears 
no  comparison  to  what  may  be.  Our  State  Geologist  assures  me 
that  in  a  single  county  in  this  State  there  are  a  thousand  millions 
tons  of  coal  awaiting  the  various  uses  to  which  the  civilization  of  the 
future  will  apply  it.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Illinois  possesses 
withiu  itself  the  physical  resources  of  not  only  a  great  State,  but 
a  great  nation. 

But  if  Providence  has  been  bountiful  in  the  natural  resources  of 
the  State,  it  is  necessary  that  man  must  be  able  and  willing  to  use 
them  to  advantage ;  that  he  must  have  the  capacity  both  to  discern 
the  capabilities  of  our  situation  and  turn  them  to  the  advantage  of 
our  own  and  the  people  of  other  climes  and  countries.  While,  as 
I  have  shown,  the  physical  resources  of  a  State  are  the  foundation 
of  all  other,  it  is  also  true  that  the  people  of  a  State  must  be  equal 
to  the  demands  and  requirements  of  its  physical  capabilities.  The 
most  favored  situation  may  be  thrown  away  on  a  degenerate  or 
incapable  people.  But,  happily,  we  not  only  possess^the  physical 
resources  of  a  great  nation,  but  the  mental  and  moral  capacities  of 
a  dominant  and  progressive  race.  All  it  need8,Hhen,  for'a  proper 
development  of  our  resources  is,  that  our  efforts  be  well  directed  ; 
that  we  organize  and  direct  labor,  to  the  end  that  Jthe  greatest 
amount  of  development  may  be  attained  by  the  least  possible 
expenditure  of  brute  force ;  that  by  combination  of  effort,  by  organi- 
zation of  industry,  by  bringing  into  harmonious  working  develop- 
ment the  three  great  branches  of  human  industry — agriculture 
manufactures  and  commerce — we  may  so  weld  each  apparently 
hostile  but  really  mutually  dependent  interest,  into  such  a  sym- 
metrical whole,  as  to  produce  the  most  perfect  social  system.  And 
this  has  been  the  aim  of  philosophy  and  statesmanship  since  the 
world  began.  But  it  can  only  be  attained  by  the  triumph  of  mind 


12 

over  matter ;  by  a  continual  progress,  in  which  the  apparently  inert 
forces  of  nature  are  made  to  subserve  the  highest  uses  of  man. 

The  war  now  being  waged  has  tended,  more  than  any  other 
event  in  the  history  of  the  country,  to  militate  against  the  Jeffer- 
sonian  iden,  that  "  the  best  government  is  that  which  governs 
least."  The  war  has  not  only,  of  necessity,  given  more  power  to, 
but  has  led  to  a  more  intimate  prevision  of  the  government  over 
every  material  interest  of  society.  By  creating  a  large  debt,  it  has 
necessitated  an  extended  and  elaborate  system  of  taxation.  This 
system  takes  note  of  every  man's  business,  its  profits  and  its  proba- 
ble future  increase,  so  that  the  State  may  know  what  revenue  it 
has  at  the  present  time  and  what  it  may  depend  on  in  the  future. 
But,  by  creating  a  large  debt,  the  war  has  also  created  a  means  of 
stimulating  the  industry  of  the  country.  It  has  created  a  credit,  in 
the  shape  of  public  securities,  which  is  so  much  banking  capital  for 
the  industry  of  the  nation,  and  forms  a  sure  basis  for  creating  more 
wealth  through  all  the  ramifications  of  industry.  A  merely  agri- 
cultural country,  such  as  the  ideas  of  the  great  minds  of  the  earlier 
period  of  the  democratic  party  believed  to  be  the  ultima  tfiule  of 
the  social  state,  never  could  sustain  the  immense  debt  which  we 
are  compelled  to  provide  for.  It  is  only  through  the  enlargement 
of  the  manufacturing  and  commercial  industries  of  the  country 
that  it  can  be  borne.  But  through  those  it  can  be  made  that  which 
the  people  of  Great  Britain  proudly  call  theirs:  "a  great  national 
blessing."  It  can  be  made  to  enlarge,  strengthen,  and  place  upon 
an  enduring  basis  of  prosperity,  those  great  material  interests  of 
the  country,  which  are  the  pride  as  well  as  the  distinguishing 
features  of  every  civilized  nation.  It  will  be  the  development  of 
manufactures  and  commerce  to  the  highest  possible  point,  which 
will  finally  rescue  the  present  social  state  from  the  many  evils 
which  accompany  it,  and  usher  in  the  millemurn  day  of  true  social 
and  political  equality.  "While  I  cannot  say  that  I  desire  a  large 
national  debt,  yet,  as  we  are  to  have  it,  we  can  console  ourselves 
that  while  a  large  debt  has  its  disadvantages  it  also  has  its  com- 
pensatory blessings.  It  brings  the  government  nearer  to  the  indi- 
vidual. It  makes  the  man  recognize  himself  as  part  and  parcel  of 
the  State.  He  supports  it,  and  he  feels  that  it  is  bound  to  protect 
him.  The  man  who  pays  twenty  dollars  of  a  school  tax  expects 
that  his  children  will  receive  a  proper  education.  Tho  manufac- 
turer, or  farmer,  or  merchant,  or  ship  owner,  who  pays  his  taxes 


13 

on  his  particular  branch  of  industry,  justly  expects  that  that  indus- 
try will  be  fostered  and  protected.  It  is  true-  that  a  great  national 
debt  binds  us  more  closely  as  a  people — makes  us  realize  the  great 
benefits  of  a  government,  while  it  causes  us  to  feel  its  burdens. 
All  duty  is  reciprocal.  "  With  whatever  measure  ye  mete,  it  shall 
be  measured  to  you  again." 

But  it  is  to  our  debt,  as  a  means  of  stimulating  our  industrial  in- 
terests, that  I  particularly  desire  to  call  your  attention  ;  because  it 
lies  in  your  power  to  provide  the  means  through  which  those  inter- 
ests can  be  enlarged  and  extended.  We  must  utilize  the  credits  of 
the  State  and  nation,  if  we  would  keep  pace  with  the  progress  of 
other  states  and  peoples ;  if  we  desire  to  bear  our  share  of  the  bur- 
dens of  the  present  war;  if  we  hope  when  the  white-winged  mes- 
senger of  peace  shall  glad  a  distracted  country,  to  provide  employ- 
ment for  the  thousands  of  our  "gallant  boys  in  blue,"  who  are  now 
braving  the  storms  of  battle  on  many  fields,  when  they  return  to 
the  peaceful  avocations  of  industry.  We  must  encourage  the  for- 
mation of  corporations  for  extending  agriculture,  manufactures  and 
commerce.  We  must  mobilize  capital,  so  that  it  shall  not  be  "buried 
in  a  napkin,"  but  shall  earn  for  itself  the  ability  to  increase,  and,* 
by  such  increase,  stimulate  industry  and  re-create  itself.  I  feel 
deeply  on  this  subject,  because,  from  a  careful  study  of  the  condi- 
tion of  our  national  finances,  I  am  irresistibly  led  to  the  conclusion 
that,  in  order  to  pay  the  interest  on  our  debt  and  carry  on  the  war 
to  a  triumphant  close,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  the  resources 
of  the  nation  should  be  enlarged  and  extended.  The  labor  and 
capital  of  the  country  are  the  bases  and  sources  of  all  its  wealth. 
It  is  possible  that  these  may  be  overtaxed,  and  thus  eventually 
permanently  contracted  into  narrower  channels  ;  but  it  is  not  pos- 
sible, with  such  vast  material  resources  as  are  possessed  by  our  fa- 
vored land,  that  the  former  can  ever  be  too  widely  extended  or  too 
minutely  varied,  or  that  the  latter  can  be  too  greatly  increased  or 
too  widely  diffused.  Where  would  our  State  be  now,  as  to  agri- 
cultural, manufacturing  and  other  resources,  or  even  military  pow- 
er and  prestige,  if  the  internal  improvement  system,  of  which  the 
lamented  Gov.  Duncan  was  the  able  and  persistent  advocate,  had 
been  entirely  neglected,  and  the  Empire  State  of  the  Northwest 
allowed  to  vegetate  in  the  imperfect  condition  of  a  merely  agricul- 
tural and  pastoral  state  ? 


AGRICULTURAL,    MECHANICAL   AND    COMMERCIAL   BUREAU. 

In  connection  with  the  above  subject,  and  for  the  benefit  of  the 
industrial  interests  of  the  State,  I  would  respectfully  recommend 
the  creation  of  an  Agricultural,  Mechanical  and  Commercial  Bu- 
reau of  Statistics.  This  would  be  a  highly  useful  department  of 
state  government,  as  well  as  a  great  assistance  to  immigration.  But 
this  is  but  a  small  part  of  the  benefit  it  would  confer.  The  nation  is 
passing  into  a  new  era  of  its  existence.  Old  forms  must  be  aban- 
doned, and  enlarged  views  of  the  principles  of  government  accept- 
ed. The  garments  of  the  youth  are  too  contracted  for  the  man. 
With  increasing  and  varying  industrial  pursuits,  the  people  demand 
increased  duties  on  the  part  of  the  State.  At  present,  corporations, 
representing  special  interests,  take  upon  them  duties  which  prop- 
erly belong  to  the  State  at  large.  Thus  the  only  statistical  tables 
are  those  prepared  by  the  Chambers  of  Commerce  of  our  cities,  or 
by  corporations  interested  in  a  special  branch  of  industry.  These 
tables  are,  of  course,  but  partial  representations  of  the  condition  of 
the  industrial  interests  of  the  State.  We  should  have  a  Bureau, 
which  would  prepare  statistics  and  present  facts  regarding  all  the 
industrial  interests  of  the  State,  agricultural,  mechanical  and  com- 
mercial. These  would  be  of  use,  not  only  to  the  farmer,  the  man- 
ufacturer and  the  merchant,  but  to  the  statesman  and  social  econo- 
mist. A  short  time  since,  when  a  distinguished  foreign  statesman 
requested  to  see  a  compilation  of  the  social  and  industrial  statistics 
of  the  State,  it  was  a  matter  of  embarrassment  to  rne,  when  com- 
pelled to  inform  him  that  there  was  no  such  work  in  existence. 
Such  a  work  would  be  more  highly  useful  than  most  persons  are 
apt  to  imagine.  It  would  enable  the  merchant  to  regulate  the  quan- 
tity of  his  stocks,  the  farmer  to  fix  his  prices,  the  manufacturer 
to  determine  his  wants,  and  the  statesman  to  draw  up  the  most 
comprehensive  and  least  oppressive  system  of  taxation.  As  we 
now  stand,  in  this  respect,  all  these  things  are  done  at  haphazard. 
The  consequence  is,  a  loss  of  time  and  money,  and,  very  often,  our 
people  are  driven  from  certain  markets  and  overstock  others, 
through  ignorance  of  the  particular  wants  and  necessities  of  the 
country,  and  the  quantity  of  merchandize  needed  to  supply  them. 
Suppose  the  statistical  tables  of  the  State  showed  that  Illinois  pos- 
sessed a  certain  quantity  of  corn  in  her  cribs  and  store  houses, 
would  not  this  fact  draw  buyers  from  all  parts  to  invest  in  the 


15 

cheapest  market,  and  not  leave  the  people  subject  to  a  few  monopo- 
lists ?  And  so  with  other  articles.  The  diffusion  of  knowledge  on 
the  state  of  the  markets  is  one  of  the  best  safeguards  to  the  great 
mass  of  the  peopled  against  the  chicanery  and  fraud  of  speculators, 
monopolists  and  middle-men  generally.  To  protect  the  weak 
against  the  encroachments  of  the  strong,  is  one  of  the  primary  ob- 
jects of  government.  For  these  and  other  reasons,  I  earnestly  re- 
commend the  establishment  of  a  Bureau  of  Statistics,  to  be  presided 
over  by  a  Commissioner  practically  familiar  with  the  great  indus- 
trial interests  of  the  State. 

GEOLOGICAL   SURVEY. 

This  work  has  now  been  in  progress  nearly  seven  years,  under 
the  charge  of  the  present  director,  and  his  reports,  embracing  the 
results  of  the  labors  of  the  Geological^corps  employed  in  the  sur- 
vey, have  been,  from  time  to  time,  presented  to  the  proper  author- 
ities for  publication.  A  voluminous  report  is  now  ready)  embracing 
the  general  result  of  all  the  labor  performed  up  to  the  present 
time,  with  about  fifty  plates  of  illustration,  besides  the  necessary 
maps  and  geological  sections,  which  have  been  executed  in  a  man- 
ner highly  creditable  to  the  artists  who  have  been'  employed  in  this 
department.  It  is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  some  provision  should 
be  made  by  the  Legislature,  at  its  present  session,  for  the  publica- 
tion of  this  work ;  for,  although  the  responsibility  is  thrown  on  the 
Executive,  by  the  law  organizing  the  survey,  there  is  no  special 
provision  in  that  law  for  placing  at  my  disposal  the  means  necesary 
to  defray  the  expenses  attending  it. 

For  further  information  in  relation"  to  the  present  condition  of 
this  -work,  I  refer  you  to  the  "  Beport  of  Progress  "  of  the  State 
Geologist,  which  is  herewith  submitted,  and  to  my  former  mes- 
sages, in  which  this  subject  is  more  fully  presented. 

.  THE   PENITENTIARY. 

Since  my  last  message,  the  work  upon  the  State  Penitentiary 
has  gone  on  vigorously,  and  gratifying  progress  has  been  made. 
But  the  appropriation  voted  by  the  last  Legislature  for  the"finishing 
of  this  institution,  and  Which,  at  the  time,  was  believed  to  be  suffi- 
cient, has  been  exhausted,^leaving  some  important  and  necessary 
portions  of  the  work  still  incomplete.  The  usual  detailed  reports 


16 

of  the  officers  of  the  penitentiary  have  been  received  by  the  Audi- 
tor, and  will  be  duly  submitted  to  the  Legislature.  The  commis- 
sioners present  a  statement  of  the  management  of  the  institution, 
and  of  expenditures  upon  it  during  the  last  two  years,  and  state  its 
future  needs.  It  will  remain  for  the  Legislature  to  do,  in  its  wis- 
dom, what  shall  be  thought  best  to  preserve  and  promote  this  great 
State  undertaking. 

As  it  has  been  charged  by  a  portion  of  the  press  of  the  State 
that  the  lease  of  penitentiary  convicts  made  to  James  M.  Pittmanj 
at  the  session  of  June,  1863,  was  a  fraud  upon  the  State,  and  that 
the  interests  of  the  State,  as  well  as  the  discipline  of  the  convicts, 
very  materially  suffer  under  the  present  management,  I  deem  it 
my  duty  to  recommend  the  General  Assembly  to  institute  a  thor- 
ough investigation  of  the  charges  made,  and  into  the  management 
and  discipline  of  the  penitentiary.  The  almost  complete  absorp- 
tion of  my  time  by  the  military  affairs  of  the  State  has  prevented 
rne  from  giving  that  attention  to  the  subject  of  the  discipline  and 
well-being  of  the  convicts  as  I,  under  other  circumstances,  should 
have  done. 

The  object  of  punishment  is  not  only  to  deprive  the  offender  of 
the  opportunity  of  committing  further  crime,  and  to  deter  others 
from  its  commission,  but  also  a  most  important  object  is  the  refor- 
mation of  the  offender,  especially  where,  after  his  release,  he  is  to 
go  back  and  become  a  member  of  society.  After  conferring  wifch 
those  who  have  had  experience  on  this  subject,  I  am  fully  satisfied 
that  there  should  be,  as  we  have  at  the  head  of  our  State  benevo^ 
lent  institutions,  some  general  superintendent  of  every  such  insti* 
tution ;  a  man  of  the  highest  moral  character,  of  practical  wisdom 
and  business  talent,  who  should  be  responsible  for  the  entire  con- 
trol of  the  penitentiary.  He  should  appoint  the  guards,  clerks, 
stewards,  and  all  the  inferior  officers ;  he  should  regulate  the  police, 
arrange  the  discipline,  appropriate  the  funds  for  the  necessary 
expenses,  transact  the  business  of  the  prison,  either  by  agents, 
clerks,  or  contractors,  and  always  have  the  control  of  the  convicts. 
He  should  have  a  fixed  salary,  and  not  a  per  centage  on  the  profits. 
Secondly,  the  warden  should  have  the  general  care  of  the  convicts 
in  his  charge;  also,  superintendence  of  the  guards  and  of  the 
police.  lie  should  not  be  in  any  way  interested  in  the  business  of 
the  prison,  except  to  oversee  the  men  in  their  labor,  and  discipline 


offenders  under  rules  laid  down  by  the  general  superintendent. 
He  should  also  have  a  fixed  salary. 

A  liberal  appropriation  should  be  made  for  the  maintenance  of 
an  efficient  chaplain — one  who  should  have  the  moral  and  reli- 
gious care  of  the  men;  the^  regulation  of  their  religious  services; 
should  select  books  for  the  library,  (for  which  purpose  a  liberal 
appropriation  should  be  made;)  be  allowed  to  write  letters  for  the 
convicts ;  and  should  have  free  access  to  the  prisoners  and  the  hos- 
pital. And  here  I  must  say,  in  most  emphatic  terms,  that  the  fact 
that  the  State  allows  only  five  dollars  per  week  to  the  chaplain  of 
the  State,  and  where  there  are  six  hundred  convicts,  is  a  disgrace 
to  the  State,  which  this  Legislature,  I  trust,  will  wipe  out,  and  give 
to  the  chaplain  a  salary  of  not  less  than  one  thousand  dollars  per 
year.  Also,  as  not  one  dime  is  allowed  for  newspapers,  I  recom- 
mend that  at  least  one  hundred  dollars  be  appropriated  for  news- 
papers, to  be  selected  by  the  superintendent,  and  circulated  among 
the  convicts. 

The  province  of  the  physician  should  be  to  administer  to  the 
infirmities  of  the  convicts,  and  be  responsible  to  the  general  super- 
intendent for  his  care  and  attention. 

Such,  generally,  in  my  humble  opinion,  should  be  the  outline  of 
the  penitentiary  management.  I  have  no  hesitation  in  suggesting 
that  some  such  system,  perfected  by  men  of  practical  wisdom  and 
experience,  would  result  in  vast  saving  to  the  State,  and  largely 
promote  the  welfare  of  the  unhappy  multitudes  thrown  upon  its 
care,  and  lead  to  many  permanent  reformations  of  the  prisoners. 
All  the  dictates  of  humanity  require  that  particular  attention 
should  be  given  to  this  important  subject  by  the  members  of  the 
General  A*,  e mbly.  I  refer  you  to  two  interesting  communications 
irom  the  present  and  former  chaplains,  transmitted  herewith. 

EDUCATION. 

For  a  view  of  the  progress  and  present  condition  of  the  common 
and  Normal  schools  of  the  State,  I  refer  you  to  the  report  of  the 
Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction,  and  invite  your  attention  to 
the  necessity  of  making  provision  for  the  immediate  expansion  and 
more  perfect  development  of  the  system.  The  grand  procession 
of  events,  political  and  military,  which  crowd  the  present,  must  not 
blind  us  to  the  inexorable  demands  of  the  future.  No  lesson  of 
—3 


18 

this  historic  period  is  being  more  impressively  taught  us  than  this : 
that  under  a  constitution  like  ours  the  whole  people  must  be  trained 
to  a  just  conception  of  their  rights  as  men  ;  of  their  duties  as  citi- 
zens ;  and  of  their  sacred  obligations  as  patriots.  This,  in  theory, 
is  the  end  sought  by  our  system  of  free  schools,  and  very  great 
progress  has  been  made.  But  the  time  has  come  when  a  vast  acces- 
sion must  be  made  to  the  educational  forces  of  the  State.  Ten 
years  have  brought  us  to  a  new  era,  demanding  new  agencies,  new 
measures,  and  a  more  comprehensive,  aggressive  and  liberal  educa- 
tional policy.  More  money  must  be  appropriated,  more  men  must 
be  employed,  more  forces  organized  and  put  in  operation.  The 
progress  of  events  has  superannuated  the  scale  of  operations  upon 
which  our  free  school  system  was  inaugurated.  What  did  very 
well  in  1855,  will  not  do  for  1865. 

Much  of  the  machinery  of  common  schools  needs  to  be  simplified, 
reorganized  and  perfected;  temporary  schools  of  instruction  for 
teachers  must  be  organized  arid  conducted,  at  suitable  points, 
throughout  the  State ;  the  changeless  laws  of  mental  growth  and 
action  must  be  proclaimed  to  the  people  everywhere,  that  they  may 
be  able  to  estimate  the  difference  between  right  and  wrong  methods 
of  teaching — the  priceless  blessings  of  good  teachers  and  schools, 
and  the  worthlessness  of  bad  ones ;  the  duty  of  obedience  to  hygi- 
enic laws  in  the  management  of  schools,  must  be  inculcated,  that 
we  may  have  a  generation  of  youth  sound  in  body  as  well  as  in 
mind ;  a  spirit  of  taste  and  beauty  must  be  diffused  until  the 
chaste  and  attractive,  though  simple  and  uncostly,  designs  of  mod- 
ern improved  school  architecture  shall  be  substituted  for  the  mo- 
notonous deformity  which  now  prevails  in  most  of  our  rural  dis- 
tricts ;  in  a  word,  the  people  must  be  led  to  understand  the  true 
idea  and  end  of  education  itself — why  men  should  be  educated,  and 
how  they  should  be  educated,  as  set  forth  with  unanswerable  power 
in  the  last  biennial  report,  to  the  end  that  they  may  see  the  inevita- 
ble abyss  into  which  a  republican  government  must  ultimately 
•plunge  without  intelligence  and  virtue  co-extensive  with  the  fran- 
chises of  the  citizen  under  the  constitution. 

To  realize  these  grand  aims,  the  resources  of  the  central  educa- 
tional office  of  the  State  must  be  increased,  both  in  men  and  means. 
It  cannot  be  done  by  the  Superintendent,  confined  to  his  office,  for 
lack  of  clerical  help,  with  no  traveling  fund  and  no  competen 
assistants.     It  can  only  be  done  in  Illinois  as  it  has  been  done  in 


19 

Massachusetts  and  other  eastern  States,  and  as  it  is  being  done  in 
Michigan,  Wisconsin,  and  other  western  States,  by  a  liberal  appro- 
priation for  State  Institutes  and  for  the  State  Department  of  Public 
Instruction,  that  the  living  heralds  of  these  great  educational  prin- 
ciples may  go  forth  among  the  people.  Proper  legislative  action 
is  of  course  necessary,  but  if  our  school  laws  were  as  perfect  as 
inspiration  itself  could  make  them,  they  would  be  powerless  to 
achieve  the  desired  end  without  the  living  agency  of  qualified, 
experienced  men.  The  salary  of  the  State  Superintendent  should 
be  increased  to  an  equality,  at  least,  with  that  of  the  Principal  of 
the  Normal  University,  and  he  should  be  allowed  at  least  two 
assistants,  with  salaries  sufficient  to  command  the  very  best  educa- 
tional experience  and  ability.  The  compensation  of  the  head  of 
the  Normal  School  is  not  too  large,  and  should  not  be  reduced; 
but  no  good  reason  can  be  given  why  the  head  of  the  whole  system 
should  receive  only  three-fifths  as  much  (which  is  now  the  fact)  as  the 
presiding  officer  of  an  institution  which  is  but  a  unit  in  that  system. 
A  comparison  of  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  the  two  positions 
would  justify  no  such  disparity  of  compensation.  Much  is  said 
about  the  "necessity  of  economy  in  public  expenditures.  No  *nan 
shall  be  before  me  in  acting  upon  that  principle.  I  advocate 
liberal  appropriations  for  educational  purposes  because  it  is  the  only 
true  economy,  in  the  long  run.  No  investment  will  prove  more 
profitable  on  final  settlement. 

The  Normal  University,  under  its  present  very  able  administra- 
tion, is  more  than  fulfilling  the  most  sanguine  expectations  of  its 
founders  and  friends,  and  should  be  regarded  with  just  pride  by 
every  citizen  of  the  State.  Its  halls  are  literally  crowded  with 
students  from  all  parts  of  the  State.  It  is  doing  a  great  and  good 
work.  I  commend  it  and  its  interests  to  the  confidence  and  favor 
of  the  Legislature. 

In  dismissing  thus  briefly  this  great  public  interest,  I  proclaim 
it  as  my  belief  that  no  other  should  receive  more  serious  attention 
and  enlightened  action  at  the  hands  of  this  General  Assembly. 
The  character  of  our  future  as  a  State  and  people  will  depend  more 
upon  the  educator  than  the  politician.  It  is  a  disgraceful  fact  that 
this  great  State,  so  matchless  in  all  the  elements  of  material  wealth 
and  power — so  illustrious  in  her  record  of  heroism  and  devotion  to 
the  Union — so  soon  to  exercise,  by  her  position  and  character,  a 
controlling  influence  in  the  councils  of  the  nation — this  great  State 


20 

is  among  the  most  meagre  and  inadequate  of  all  the  free-school 
States  of  the  Union  in  the  endowment  of  her  State  Department  of 
Education.  I  trust  that  this  will  be  so  no  longer.  We  cannot 
afford  to  neglect  these  interests. 

CONGRESSIONAL   GRANT   OF   LANDS   FOR   EDUCATIONAL    PURPOSES. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Congress,  by  act  approved  July  2, 
1862,  donated  to  the  several  States,  under  certain  conditions,  pub- 
lic lands,  or  scrip  for  the  same,  in  the  proportion  of  thirty  thousand 
acres  for  each  senator  and  representative  in  Congress,  the  proceeds 
of  the  sale  of  which,  or  the  land  scrip  to  be  issued  therefor,  is  to 
be  invested  in  stocks  of  the  United  States,  or  of  the  States,  or  some 
other  safe  stocks,  yielding  not  less  than  five  per  cent,  upon  the  par 
.value  of  said  stocks,  and  to  constitute  a  perpetual  fund,  the  interest 
of  which  is  to  be  inviolably  appropriated  to  the  endowment,  sup- 
port, and  maintenance  of  at  least  one  college  in  each  State,  where 
the  leading  object  shall  be,  without  excluding  other  scientific  and 
classical   studies,  and  including  military  tactics,   to   teach    such... 
branches  of  learning  as  are  related  to  agricultural  and  mechanic 
arts,  in  such  manner  as  the  Legislature  may  prescribe,  in  order  to 
promote  the  liberal  and  practical  education  of  the  industrial  classes 
(n  the  several  pursuits  and  professions  in  life;  also  further  pro- 
viding that  any  State  which  may  take  the  benefits  of  the  provisions  of 
the  act,  shall  provide,  within  five  years  of  the  date  of  such  act,  at 
least  one  college,  as  described  in  the  act,  or  the  grant  to  the  State 
to  cease,  and  requiring  the  State,  by  its  Legislature,  to  express  its 
acceptance  of  the  provisions  of  the  act  within  two  years  after  the 
date  of  its  approval.     The  latter  provision  has  been  carried  out  by 
the  act  of    the  last  Legislature  accepting  the   donation,  but  no 
steps  were  taken  to  carry  into  effect  the  provisions  requiring  the 
establishment  of  a  college,  and  it  is  for  you  to  take  such  action  .as 
will  secure  to  our  State  the  benefit  of  this  valuable  grant. 

This  brief  synopsis  of  the  general  features  of  the  act  of  Con- 
gress, will  enable  you  to  understand  more  fully  the  position  which 
this  State,  by  the  action  of  the  last  Legislature,  occupies  in 
reference  to  the  subject 

Pursuant  to  the  acceptance,  and  after  being  duly  notified  thereof, 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  has  placed  in  my  hands  land  scrip 
for  the  location  of  four  hundred  and  eighty  thousand  acres.  There 
being  no  public  lands  within  the  limits  of  this  State  subject  to  private 


21 

entry,  upon  which  said  scrip  can  be  properly  located,  it  becomes 
the  duty  of  the  General  Assembly  to  provide  by  law,  for  its  sale 
and  investment  of  the  proceeds  thereof  in  stocks,  as  contemplated 
and  required  by  said  act  of  Congress.  There  remains  but  a 
little  more  than  two  years  within  which  time  the  State  must  com- 
ply with  the  provisions  of  the  act,  and  to  establish  a  college  or  col- 
leges for  the  purposes  specified,  or  the  grant,  as  to  this  State,  is  to 
cease. 

The  shortness  of  the  time,  the  importance  and  magnitude 
of  the  enterprise,  its  effects  upon  the  educational  interests  of  the 
State,  and  the  variety  of  great  questions  involved,  justify  me  in 
calling  your  special  attention  to  the  subject  at  this  time.  I  there- 
fore advise  that  a  commission  be  appointed,  charged  with  the  duty 
of  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress,  under 
such  safeguards  as  your  wisdom  may  suggest  and  approve.  No 
part  of  the  fund  arising  from  this  grant  can  be  appropriated  to  the 
erection  or  repair  of  edifices  or  buildings,  and  it  therefore  becomes 
necessary  for  the  General  Assembly  to  provide  for  the  same  with- 
in the  time  limited  by  the  act  of  Congress.  Doubtless  there  are 
many  localities  within  the  State,  which  would  undertake  to  furnish 
the  requisite  buildings  and  structures  for  such  an  institution  with- 
out cost  to  the  State,  in  consideration  of  the  local  benefits  they  may 
be  supposed  to  derive  from  the  same ;  and  I,  therefore,  recommend 
that  the  appointment  of  a  commission,  to  locate  said  institution,  be 
provided  for  by  act  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  the  powers 
and  duties  of  said  commission  be  so  specified  and  defined  as  to  in- 
sure a  due  consideration  of  the  best  interests  of  the  cause  of  indus- 
trial education,  in  its  relation  to  the  whole  people  of  the  State. 

At  the  fair  of  the  State  Agricultural  Society,  held  during  the 
month  of  September  last,  this  subject  was  ably  discussed,  by  the 
farmers  and  mechanics  present,  at  a  series  of  conventions  called  for 
the  purpose.  The  views  and  suggestions,  will  be  submitted 
to  you  by  the  committee  appointed  at  that  time,  together  with  the 
draft  of  a  bill,  embodying  the  views  of  the  agricultural  and  me- 
chanical interests  represented  at  said  fair.  The  eminent  qualifica- 
tions of  the  gentlemen  composing  this  committee,  for  determining 
what  would  be  to  the  best  educational  interests  of  the  mechanical  and 
agricultural  classes,  as  well  as  the  respectable  and  prominent  stand- 
ing which  they  occupy  in  society,  entitle  their  recommendations  to 
your  most  favorable  consideration.  A  committee,  also  representing 


22 

the  views  of  the  mechanics  of  Chicago,  will  lay  a  communication 
before  you,  which,  with  any  other  communications  on  the  subject, 
will,  I  trust,  receive  your  careful  consideration. 

It  is  needless  for  me  to  add,  that  to  this  General  Assembly  is 
committed  this  great  and  sacred  trust,  in  which  not  alone  the  pre- 
sent, but  future  generations  of  this  State  are  deeply  interested.  If 
it  is  economically  and  wisely  administered,  it  will  be  a  source  of 
great  blessings,  and  will  reflect  credit  upon  this  General  Assembly, 
upon  whom  has  devolved  the  important  responsibility  of  devising 
the  best  mode  for  carrying  out  the  great  purposes  of  its  creation. 
There  are  other  features  of  said  act  of  Congress  which  should  be 
responded  to  by  legislation  on  the  part  of  the  General  Assembly, 
but  which  need  not  be  enumerated.  The  whole  subject,  freighted 
as  it  is  with  the  most  important  hopes  and  promises  for  the  future 
of  our  young  and  growing  State,  I  leave  iii  your  hands,  trusting  that 
in  whatever  may  be  done,  the  rights  of  the  farmers  and  mechanics, 
for  whoso  benefit  this  munificent  donation  was  made,  will  be  fully 


regarded. 


• 

A   EEGISTRY   LAW. 


The  elective  franchise  is  a  distinguishing  feature  of  our  republi- 
can system.  The  legislation  of  the  country,  its  policy  and  its  insti- 
tutions, are  determined  by  the  majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  the 
state  or  nation,  and  the  mode  of  ascertaining  that  majority  is  by 
the  ballots  of  the  voters  deposited  in  the  ballot  box.  In  the  absence 
of  any  guards  or  restrictions  thrown  around  the  ballot  box,  a  fair 
expression  of  the  will  of  the  majority  may  be  defeated  by  illegal 
Voting.  It  is  but  too  often  the  case  that  corrupting  influences  are 
brought  to  bear  upon  voters  who,  from  mercenary  considerations,  or 
under  political  excitement,  are  led  to  vote  oftener  than  they  are  en- 
titled, and  who  lack  the  requirements  of  age,  residence,  or  other 
qualifications  required  by  the  constitution  and  laws.  It  is  some- 
times the  case  that  men  who  plead  exemption  from  military  service, 
and  claim  the  protection  of  foreign  governments  in  case  of  a  draft, 
are  yet  among  the  first  to  claim  and  exercise  the  right  of  suffrage 
at  the  polls.  Again,  instances  are  known  of  unworthy  citizens  who 
go  from  place  to  place,  casting  their  votes  under  assumed  names, 
wherever,  through  the  oversight  or  political  connivance  of  the  judges 
of  the  election,  they  can  have  them  received.  To  prevent  such 


23 

practices,  I  recommend  the  passage  of  a  stringent  registry  law,  re- 
quiring the  name  of  each  voter  to  be  recorded  for  a  given  number 
of  days  previous  to  such  general  election.  The  time  should  be 
sufficient  to  secure  an  investigation  into  the  qualifications  of  the 
voter  in  every  doubtful  case.  Laws  of  this  character  have  been 
found  to  operate  well  and  meet  the  approbation  of  men  of  all  par- 
ties who  desire  to  maintain  the  purity  of  the  ballot  box. 

BLACK   LAWS. 

Of  the  black  laws  I  have  but  little  to  say,  except  to  recommend 
that  you  sweep  them  from  the  statute  book  with  a  swift,  relentless 
hand.  My  opinion  of  them  cannot  be  better  expressed  than  in  the 
language  of  a  resolution,  which  as  a  member  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly in  February,  1849,  I  had  the  honor  in  a  feeble  minority  to  ad- 
vocate, "declaring  the  laws  of  the  State,  applicable  to  negroes  and 
mulattues,  tyrannical,  iniquitous  and  oppressive  upon  this  weak, 
harmless  and  unfortunate  class,  and  unbecoming  the  statutes  of  a 
free,  magnanimous,  enlightened  and  Christian  nation."  They  were 
originally  enacted  to  gratify  an  unjustifiable  public  prejudice  against 
the  friends  of  liberty,  and  an  inhuman  feeling  towards  a  poor,  un- 
fortunate class  of  our  fellow  citizens.  They  assumed  a  fact,  which, 
to  the  honor  of  the  JefFersonian  ordinance  of  1787,  never  existed, 
that  slavery  did  or  could  exist  in  the  free  state  of  Illinois.  Section  9 
of  these  laws  provides  that  "if  any  slave  or  servant  shall  be  found 
ten  miles  from  the  tenement  of  his  or  her  master  'without  a  pass, 
he  may  be  punished  with  stripes  not  exceeding  thirty-five" — thus 
by  the  phraseology  of  the  law  recognizing  the  existence  of  the  in- 
stitution of  slavery  within  our  borders  and  prescribing  an  infamous 
punishment.  It  is  unconstitutional,  as  decided  by  the  Supreme 
Court  in  this  State,  "in  attempting  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  of 
the  rendition  of  fugitive  slaves  to  their  masters,  over  which  subject 
the  court  decides  that  Congress  has  supreme  and  exclusive  power." 
It  authorizes  a  system  of  slavery,  by  providing  that  every  colored 
man  who  shall  be  found  in  this  State  "without  having  a  certificate 
of  freedom"  shall  be  deemed  a  runaway  slave  or  servant—  "to  b« 
committed  to  the  custody  of  the  sheriff  of  the  county,  who  shall  ad- 
vertise him  at  the  court  house  door,"  and  "to  hire  him  out  for  the 
best  price  he  can  get,"  "from  month  to  month,"  "for  the  space  of 
one  year."  Any  law,  thus  placing  any  man,  white  or  black,  in  the 
power  of  a  purchaser,  for  money,  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the 


24: 

humanity  of  the  age  and  the  spirit  of  our  free  constitution.  These 
laws  are  unconstitutional,  because  by  the  laws  of  many  of  our  States 
free  colored  persons  are  citizens,  and  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  expressly  provides  that  "the  citizens  of  each  State  shall  be 
entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  citizens  in  the  several  States." 

An  examination  of  the  various  provisions  of  these  laws  will  sat- 
isfy this  General  Assembly  of  their  inhumanity,  and  the  humane 
and  philanthropic  will  everywhere  hail  their  repeal  with  joyful  ac- 
clamations. 

In  reply  to  those  who  say  that  if  these  laws  are  repealed  we  shall 
have  a  large  influx  of  free  negroes  into  this  State,  I  have  to  answer 
that  the  laws  are  now  almoct  a  dead  letter.  Negroes  are  not 
kept  out  of  the  State  by  them,  for  it  is  only  now  and  then,  indeed 
a  rare  case,  that  a  man  can  be  found  who  is  barbarian  enough  to  in- 
sist upon  the  application  of  the  penalties  imposed  by  these  laws. 
And  upon  the  subject  I  cannot  present  my  views  better  than  by 
the  following  extract  from  my  message  of  January  5th  1863.  Re- 
ferring to  the  emancipation  policy  of  the  administration,  I  say  : 

"I  am  sure  of  two  things  :  First — that  when  slavery  is  removed, 
this  rebellion  will  die  out,  and  not  before.  Second — I  believe  and 
predict,  and  commit  the  prediction  in  this  State  paper  to  meet  the 
verdict  of  my  successors  in  office  and  of  posterity,  that  the  change 
brought  about  by  the  policy  of  emancipation  will  pass  off'  in  a  way 
so  quietly  and  so  easily,  that  the  world  will  stand  amazed  that  we 
should  have  entertained  such  fears  of  its  evils.  During  the  war, 
there  will  be  necessarily  some  suffering  among  so  many  slaves 
thrown  out  of  employment,  and  many,  perhaps  large  numbers  of 
them,  will  seek  a  temporary  refuge  in  the  free  states,  and  every 
man  who  has  a  human  heart  within  him,  will  treat  them  kindly ; 
but  with  the  return  of  peace,  the  demand  for  labor  in  the  south  will 
be  greatly  increased,  and  there  will  be  an  exodus  not  only  of  these 
fugitives,  but  of  the  free  colored  population  to  the  south.  The  de- 
mand for  labor  in  the  south  will  be  greatly  increased  by  the  sub- 
division of  large  farms  into  numerous  small  ones,  in  the  hands  of  a 
much  larger  number  of  owners ;  also  by  the  reclamation  of  immense 
regions  of  fertile  country  in  all  our  southern  states,  waiting  only 
the  plastic  touch  of  free  labor,  the  settlement  of  which  has  been  re- 
tarded by  the  existence  of  slavery,  tending,  as  it  always  has,  and 
necessarily  always  will,  to  discourage  the  immigration  of  free  white 


citizens.  No  reasonable  fears  of  competition  with  the  free  labor  of 
the  northern  states  need  be  entertained,  because  the  emancipated 
slave  will  have  protection  and  employment  upon  the  soil  which  he 
has  heretofore  cultivated  in  bondage.  Emancipation  does  not  in- 
crease the  number  of  negroes  by  an  additional  one.  There  will  not 
be  a  single  acre  of  land  less  for  cultivation,  but  a  great  deal  more  will 
probably  be  cultivated ;  there  will  be  the  same  and  an  increasing 
demand  for  the  culture  of  cotton,  tobacco,  sugar,  and  rice,  for  which 
the  negro  is  peculiarly  adapted ;  the  southern  climate  will  remain 
unchanged,  congenial  to  his  constitution ;  and  it  is  in  the  highest 
degree  improbable  that  the  negro  will  leave  the  state  of  his  nutivi" 
ty,  where  his  labor  is  in  demand,  where  he  understands,  better  than 
any  one  else,  the  business  to  be  done,  and  where  the  climate  is  adap- 
ted to  him,  to  seek  the  cold  climates  of  the  north,  to  face  the  strong 
competition  of  northern,  skilled  free-labor,  to  encounter  the  preju 
dice  against  his  color,  and  the  pauperism  and  neglect  which  would 
meet  him  on  everyvhand." 

I  will  not  say  that  legislation  will  not  be  necessary  upon  this  sub- 
ject of  the  residence  of  free  negroes  in  our  midst ;  but  I  will  say,  that 
whatever  is  necessary  should  be  free  from  political  prejudice, 
having  regard  to  the  welfare  of  our  own,  free,  white  citizens,  and, 
at  the  same  time,  marked  with  humanity  and  a  due  regard  to  that 
unfortunate  class  of  our  fellow  beings  whom  Providence,  in  its 
wise  and  inscrutible  plans,  has  placed  in  our  care. 

SOLDIKKS'    VOTING. 

In  my  last  message  I  recommended,  in  strong  term's,  the  impor- 
tance and  justice  of  an  enactment  extending  to  our  citizen  soldiers, 
in  the  field,  the  right  of  suffrage,  but  no  action  was  had  upon  the 
same.  During  the  last  two  years  the  subject  has  been  fully  consid- 
ered and  acted  upon  in  many  of  the  loyal  States,  and  although  the 
constitutions  of  the  States  have  been  framed  without  reference  to 
a  state  of  war,  yet  the  subject  has  undergone  the  scrutiny  of  the 
highest  judicial  tribunals,  and  the  right  to  take  the  votes  of  soldiers 
in  the  field  has  been  clearly  recognized.  Laws  passed  for  this  pur- 
pose have  been  carried  into  operation  and  found  to  operate  well, 
without  any  public  injury.  I  can  see  nothing  in  our  State  consti- 
tution which  prohibits  the  passage  of  such  a  law.  Section  1,  Art. 
6  of  our  State  constitution,  provides  as  follows :  "  In  all  elections, 


26 

every  white  male  citizen,  above  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  hav- 
ing resided  in  the  State  one  year  next  preceding  any  election,  shall 
be  entitled  to  vote  at  such  election  ;  and  every  white  male  inhabi- 
tant, of  the  age  aforesaid,  who  may  be  a  resident  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  this  constitution,  shall  have  the  right  of  voting  as 
aforesaid  ;  but  no  such  citizen  or  inhabitant  shall  be  entitled  to 
vote,  except  in  the  district  or  county  in  which  he  shall  actually  reside 
at  the  time  of  such  election."  It  is  evident,  from  this  clause,  that 
the  elector  cannot  vote  in  any  other  precinct  than  that  in  which  he 
actually  resides. 

Section  4,  Art.  6  of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  pro- 
vides that  "  No  elector  shall  be  deemed  to  have  lost  his  residence 
in  this  State  by  reason  of  his  absence  on  the  business  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  or  of  this  State." 

Under  this  latter  clause,  a  minister  of  the  United  States  to  a 
foreign  court,  though  absent  for  years,  is  an  actual  resident  of  the 
district  or  county  in  which  he  resided  at  the  time  he  left  the  coun- 
try, on  his  mission.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  soldier  who  has 
left  the  county  or  district,  because  he  is  absent  on  the  business  of 
the  United  States,  and  therefore  does  not  lose  his  residence.  Now, 
is  it  reasonable  to  presume  that  the  framers  of  our  constitution^ 
while  thus  preserving  the  residence  of  the  soldier,  evidently  for 
the  purpose  of  securing  to  him  the  right  of  suffrage,  at  the  same 
time  meant  to  prohibit  the  Legislature  from  making  any  provision 
to  enable  him  to  exercise  that  right  ?  "While  the  elector  is  required 
"  to  vote  in  the  district  or  county"  in  which  he  resides,  it  is  not 
necessarily  required  that  he  is  to  be  present,  in  person,  at  the  polls, 
and  cast  his  vote.  The  object  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution 
was  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  ballot  box,  and  to  prevent  the 
voter  from  voting  more  than  once,  or  at  more  places  than  one,  at 
the  same  election.  The  object  evidently  was,  to  provide  that  his 
vote  should  only  be  cast  in  the  one  district  or  county  in  which  he  re- 
sided. Now  the  constitution,  and  the  object  of  its  framers,  are  fully 
complied  with,  when  the  soldier  has  cast  his  vote  in  his  district  or 
county,  whether  he  be  present,  and  cast  his  vote  there  in  person^ 
or  whether  the  ballot  is  deposited  there  by  his  attorney,  under  the 
proper  checks  and  restrictions — as  to  his  qualifications  of  age,  resi- 
dence, etc. — or  whether  his  vote  is  taken  in  the  field,  in  some  mode 
to  be  provided  by  the  Legislature,  and  deposited  in  the  ballot  box 
of  the  district  or  county  in  which  he  resides,  as  has  been  provided 


27 

in  the  laws  of  several  of  the  States.  The  following  plan,  with  such 
guards  and  details  as  will  prevent  frauds,  is  suggested,  as  a  practica- 
ble way  of  effecting  the  object :  The  three  field  officers,  or,  in  their 
absence,  the  three  ranking  officers  of  each  regiment  of  infantry  or 
cavalry,  and  three  highest  commissioned  officers,  or  those  acting  in 
their  places,  of  each  battery  of  artillery,  or  each  company  or  squad- 
ron of  infantry  or  cavalry  on  detached  service,  might  be  made  the 
inspectors  of  the  election,  with  power  to  appoint  the  proper  person 
clerk  of  the  election,  so  that  the  vote  may  be  taken  on  the  day  fixed 
by  the  constitution. 

There  is  no  way  of  reaching  the  case  by  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution, without  disfranchising  the  soldier  for  at  least  two  years 
to  come,  for  the  constitution  requires  that  two-thirds  of  the  General 
Assembly  shall  recommend  to  the  people  to  vote  for  or  against 
calling  a  convention  to  amend  the  constitution,  at  the  next  regular 
election  of  members  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  that  the  General 
Assembly  thus  elected  shall,  within  three  months,  call  an  election 
for  members  to  the  convention.  It  would  require  a  still  longer 
time  to  reach  the  object  under  the  clause  which  provides  for  amend- 
ment by  submitting  it  as  a  single  proposition.  It  is  therefore  plain 
that  if  this  General  Assembly  fails  to  pass  a  law  authorizing  our 
soldiers  to  votey  these  gallant  defenders  of  our  homes  and  liberties 
must  be  disfranchised  for  over  two  years  to  come. 

I  recommend  therefore  to  you,  as  one  of  your  first  acts,  the  pas- 
sage of  a  law  providing  for  taking  the  votes  of  our  soldiers  in  the 
field.  Indeed,  I  will  say,  decorously  however,  that  failure  to  pro- 
tect the  rights  of  the  noble  men  who  have  left  business  and  prop- 
erty, home  and  kindred,  to  preserve  to  you  the  enjoyment  of  this 
same  peaceful  right  of  suffrage,  together  with  all  other  rights  you 
hold  dear,  would  subject  you  to  the  charge  of  being  unfaithful  ser- 
vants to  your  country.  The  soldiers  are  citizens ;  they  are  the 
people  of  the  country ;  their  persons,  their  families,  their  property, 
their  rights  are  as  deeply  affected  by  the  legislation  of  the  country 
as  those  of  the  citizens  who  remain  at  home,  in  the  quiet  enjoy- 
ment of  peace  and  safety.  If  the  soldier  is  not  worthy  to  vote, 
who  is  ?  If  he  who  bares  his  breast  to  the  storm  of  battle,  and 
bears  aloft  our  flag,  against  the  hordes  who  are  madly  striving  to 
tear  down  our  magnificent  temple  of  constitutional  liberty ;  if  he 
shall  have  no  voice  in  selecting  his  rulers,  who  shall?  Therefore 
let  this  General  Assembly  signalize  its  patriotism  by  this  act  of 


prompt  and  necessary  justice  to  the  gallant  citizen  soldier  of  the 
State. 

I  would  suggest  to  the  General  Assembly  that,  while  I  do  not 
anticipate  an  unfavorable  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  upon  an 
enactment  to  be  passed  securing  the  right  of  suffrage  to  the  soldiers, 
yet,  in  view  of  any  such  contingency,  proper  action  should  be  taken 
for  amendment  to  the  constitution,  as  the  next  oaly  mode  of  secur- 
ing the  object. 

WAR    RECORD     OF    ILLINOIS. 
CONDUCT   OF   THE   WAR. 

Appreciating,  before  the  first  gun  was  fired  at  Sumter,  the  deter- 
mination of  treasonable  political  leaders  to  inaugurate  rebe.lion, 
and,  when  war  was  actually  made  against  the  government,  the 
great  preparation  made  by  them  for  revolt,  and  the  magnitude  of 
the  struggle  we  would  be  compelled  to  pass  through,  I  earnestly 
insisted  upon  and  urged  more  extensive  preparation  for  the  prose- 
cution of  the  war.  The  conciliatory  policy  which  looked  towards 
avoiding  a  bitter  struggle,  by  appeals  to  the  loyal  sentiment  of  the 
southern  States,  and  the  justification  in  the  ultimate  rigid  prosecu- 
tion of  war,  should  that  fail ;  thus  placing  the  government  in  a 
consistent  and  peaceful  attitude  toward  foreign  nations,  and  estab- 
lishing, by  long  forbearance,  the  disposition  of  one  section,  ir,  the 
majority  and  in  power,  to  concede  and  allay  the  animosities  of  the 
other  section,  in  the  minority,  and  defeated  at  the  ballot-box;  also, 
that  if  the  struggle  endangered  the  existence  of  the  government  and 
Union  under  our  old  constitution,  that  the  President,  as  comman- 
der-in-chief  of  the  armies  and  navy  of  the  Republic,  would  be 
justified  by  the  civilized  world,  and  by  the  trust  reposed  in  him, 
in  waging  war,  even  to  the  destruction  of  institutions  which  endan- 
gered the  peace  of  all  other  nations,  and  which  foreign  powers 
admit,  and  the  majority  of  our  own  people  had  declared,  as  sub- 
versive of  the  constitution,  and  dangerous  to  the  existence  of  the 
Union.  These  views  are  perhaps  sound  in  theory,  and  may  ulti- 
mately redound  to  our  credit  in  historic  pages;  but  I  never  alto- 
gether sympathized  with  the  policy.  The  events  of  the  war,  and 
revolutions  in  public  sentiment,  have  sustained  the  warnings  given 
in  the  early  days  of  open  treason,  and  my  position  taken  at  the  firs 


29 

declaration  of  secession  and  war :  "  that  secession  was  disunion; 
that  to  concede  to  one  State  the  right  to  release  her  people  from  the 
duties  and  obligations  belonging  to  their  citizenship,  and  you  would, 
by  that  act,  annihilate  the  sovereignty  of  the  Union,  by  prostrat- 
ing its  ability  to  secure  allegiance ; "  also,  that  the  violation  of 
law,  and  a  defiance  of  the  authority  and  power  of  the  General 
Government,  however  small,  demanded  the  immediate  punishment 
of  the  offenders,  and  the  complete  vindication  of  national  integ- 
rity ;  and  that  the  President  should  immediately  employ  the  whole 
material  of  the  government,  moral,  political  and  physical,  if  need 
be,  to  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

After  the  war  had  progressed  a  year,  and  the  mild  measures 
which  were  still  persistently  advocated  by  many  friends  of  the 
administration,  and  with  all  the  evidence,  on  the  part  of  the  rebels, 
for  complete  preparation  and  determination  to  wage  a  long  and 
desperate  war  against  the  government,  I  sent  the  President  the 
following  dispatch : 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT,  SPRINGFIELD,  ILLINOIS,  July  \\th,  1862. 
President  Lincoln,  Washington,  D.  U.: 

The  crisis  of  the  war  and  our  national  existence  is  upon  us.  The  time  has  come  for  the 
adoption  of  more  decisive  measures.  Greater  vigor  and  earnestness  must  be  infused  into 
our  military  movements.  Blows  must  be  struck  at  the  vital  parts  of  the  rebellion.  The 
government  should  employ  every  available  means  compatible  with  the  rules  of  warfare  to 
subject  the  traitors.  Summon  to  the  standard  of  the  Republic  all  men  willing  to  fight  for 
the  Union.  Let  loyalty,  and  that  alone,  be  the  dividing  line  between  the  nation  and  its 
foes.  Generals  should  not  be  permitted  to  fritter  away  the  sinews  of  our  brave  men  in 
guarding  the  property  of  traitors,  and  in  driving  back  into  their  hands  loyal  blacks,  who* 
offer  us  their  labor,  and  seek  shelter  beneath  the  federal  flag.  Shall  we  sit  supinely  by, 
and  see  the  war  sweep  off  the  youth  and  strength  of  the  land,  and  refuse  aid  from  that 
class  of  men,  who  are  at  least  worthy  foes  of  traitors  and  the  murderers  of  our  govern- 
ment and  of  our  children? 

Our  armies  should  be  directed  to  forage  on  the  enemy,  and  to  cease  paying  traitors  and 
their  abettors  exorbitant  exactions  for  food  needed  by  the  sick  or  hungry  soldier.  Mild 
and  conciliatory  means  have  been  tried  iu  vain  to  recall'  the  rebels  to  their  allegiance. 
The  conservative  policy  has  utterly  failed  to  reduce  traitors  to  obedience,  and  to  restore 
the  supremacy  of  the  laws.  They  have,  by  means  of  sweeping  conscriptions,  gathered  in 
countless  hordes,  and  threaten  to  beat  back  and  overwhelm  the  armies  of  the  Union. 
With  blood  and  treason  in  their  hearts,  they  flaunt  the  black  flag  of  rebellion  in  the  face 
of  the  government,  and  threaten  to  butcher  our  brave  and  loyal  armies  with  foreign  bay- 
onets. They  arm  negroes  and  merciless  savages  in  their  behalf. 

Mr.  Lincoln,  the  crisis  demands  greater  and  sterner  measures.  Proclaim  anew  the  good 
old  motto  of  the  Republic,  "Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  forever,  one  and  inseparable," 
and  accept  the  services  of  all  loyal  mtn,  and  it  will  be  in  your  power  to  stamp-  armies  out 
of  the  earth — irresistible  armies,  that  will  bear  our  banners  to  certain  victory. 

In  any  event,  Illinois,  already  alive  with      at  of  drum,  and  resounding  with  the  tramp 


30 

of  new  recruits,  will  respond  to  your  call.     Adopt  this  policy,   and  she  will  leap  like  a 
flaming  giant  into  the  fight. 

This  policy  for  the  conduct  of  the  war  will  render  foreign  intervention  impossible,  and 
the  arms  of  the  Republic  invincible.  It  will  bring  the  conflict  to  a  speedy  close,  and 
secure  peace  on  a  permanent  basis. 

RICHARD  YATES, 

Governor  of  Illinois. 

Impressed  with  these  views,  and  the  necessity  of  each  State 
giving  immediate  and  the  most  practical  support  to  the  govern- 
ment, and  inspired  by  the  unparalleled  enthusiasm  of  the  people 
of  Illinois,  I  asked  that  millions  should  be  armed  where  the  gov- 
ernment asked,  in  limited  calls,  only  for  a  few  hundred  thousand 
men.  Bull  Run,  Carthage,  Wilson's  Creek,  and  the  attitude  of 
Kentucky  and  Missouri,  painfully  demonstrated  the  inadequacy  of 
preparation  on  the  part  of  the  government  for  the  crisis  ;  and  had 
it  not  been  for  the  overpowering  uprising  of  the  people  of  the  free 
States,  and  their  loyal  and  determined  expression  to  take  the  war 
in  their  own  hands,  we  might  have  had  enacted  on  our  own  soil 
the  scenes  which  have  desolated  border  States,  and  the  country 
involved  in  a  strife  for  a  period  and  in  bitterness  far  exceeding  the 
darkest  periods  we  have  passed  in  the  last  three  years. 

Before  the  battle  of  Bull  Itun,  and  before  important  points  being 
occupied  by  rebel  troops — after  consultation  with  the  Governors  of 
the  loyal  States,  and  with  distinguished  citizens  of  Illinois,  who,  as 
commanding  generals,  have  led  our  gallant  soldiers  to  brilliant  victo- 
ries— I  recommended  the  occupation  of  New  Orleans,  Memphis, 
Columbus,  and  commanding  positions  on  the  Cumberland  and 
Tennessee  rivers,  by  United  States  regular  troops ;  thus  obviating 
the  necessity  of  arraying  sections  against  each  other  by  the  employ- 
ment of  a  volunteer  army,  and  plainly  foreshadowing  the  determi 
nation  of  the  government  to  firmly  resist  and  punish  violations  of 
law,  and  overwhelm  the  presumptuous  insolence  of  rebel  leaders 
in  the  act  of  inaugurating  rebellion  in  the  States.     These  afforts 
were  unavailing ;  and  the  government  was  afterward  compelled  to 
occupy  these  important  positions  by  larger  armies  of  volunteer 
troops,  and  at  fearful  sacrifice  of  life,  and  expenditure  of  millions 
of  dollars.     The  conciliatory  policy,  so  destructive  to  our  interests 
in  the  west,  entered  largely  into  the  organization  of  the  army 
formed  for  the  defense  of  the  national  capital,  and  offensive  opera- 
tions in  Virginia ;  and  we  had  the  lamentable  picture  of  the  Gene- 
ral chosen  to  chief  command  issuing  orders  that  slaves  discovered 


31 

in  making  war  for  the  government  against  their  rebellious  masters 
should  be  put  down  with  an  iron  hand,  and  one  temporizing  Gov- 
ernor of  Missouri  pronouncing  the  act  of  the  President,  in  calling 
for  a  detachment  of  militia  to  enforce  the  national  authority, 
"  illegal,  unconstitutional,  revolutionary,  inhuman,  diabolical,  and 
cannot  be  complied  with."  Another  replied  that  "  Kentucky  will 
furnish  no  troops  for  the  wicked  purpose  of  subduing  her  sister 
southern  States;"  and  "Tennessee  will  not  furnish  a  single  man 
for  coercion." 

Kid  glove  in  civil  council,  and  kid  glove  and  warm  sympathy 
"for  our  erring  southern  brethren"  in  the  organization  of  the 
eastern  army,  made  service  there  distasteful  to  western  volunteers ; 
and  this  sentiment  impressed  me  with  the  importance  of  securing 
the  close  consolidation  of  our  State  forces  at  the  commencement  of 
the  war;  and,  as  far  as  it  was  consistent  or  possible  for  me  to  do 
so,  I  secured  the  intimate  association  of  all  our  regiments  in  brig- 
ade and  division  organizations  in  the  field.  This  also  facilitated 
the  convenient  distribution  of  supplies  then  issued  by  the  State  for 
the  General  Government ;  provided  the  earliest  relief  possible  to 
the  largest  number,  after  long  marches  and  severe  engagements ; 
afforded  the  easiest  and  cheapest  transit  of  sanitary  supplies  to  lield 
and  general  hospitals;  and  concentrated  our  contingents  to  the  na 
tional  army  in  corps  designed  for  campaigns  through  territory  famil. 
iar  to  both  officers  and  men,  and  in  which  they  would  more  speedily 
develop  their  genius  for  military  life,  and  render  the  most  efficient 
and  practical  service  to  the  government.  It  was  natural  to  presume 
that  our  young  men  who  passed  their  early  days  in  States  south  of 
the  Ohio,  and  deplored  the  dedication  of  their  old  homesteads  and 
associations  to  the  cause  of  rebellion;  and  that  the  immigrant  from 
New  England,  the  Middle  States,  and  Europe,  dwelling  upon  our 
fertile  prairies,  and  growing  rich  and  independent  from  the  products 
of  free  labor,  would  recognize  the  importance  and  more  zealously 
prosecute  the  re  conquest  of  the  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  and  the 
control  of  its  great  river — our  natural  outlet  to  the  ocean,  so  vital 
to  the  success  of  our  enemies,  and  so  necessary  to  the  protection 
of  our  local  interests,  and  the  integrity  of  the  Union — and  that 
,  our  whole  people  would  sympathize  with  and  sustain  efforts  to  thus 
gather. and  unite  the  whole  strength  of  the  State  in  solid  force 
against  treason,  and  for  tho  restoration  of  the  national  unity,  per- 
fect in  all  its  parts. 


32 

Belmont,  Donelson,  Island  No.  10,  Shiloh,  Corinth,  Parker  8 
Cross  Roads,  Port  Gibson,  Raymond,  Champion  Hills,  Black 
River,  Siege  of  Yicksburg,  Perryville,  Stone  River,  Chickamauga, 
Lookout  Mountain,  Atlanta,  Franklin,  .Nashville,  and  the  triumphal 
march  of  Sherman,  speak  in  thunder  tones  of  the  consolidated 
efforts  ot  Illinois,  vieing  with  the  volunteers  of  other  States  in 
battling  for  the  Union. 

We  have  lost  thousands  of  our  best  men,  and  whole  regiments 
and  batteries,  in  the  conflicts  of  this  fearful  war;  but  we  have  not 
to  deplore  the  decimation  of  the  ranks  of  gallant  regiments,  led  by 
timid  and  halting  generals  on  fruitless  and  purposeless  campaigns, 
prosecuted  without  skill  or  vigor,  and  with  the  deplorable  morale  of 
a  fear  to  punish  traitors  not  actually  in  arms,  and  the  employment 
of  the  best  strength  of  their  armies  in  protecting  rebel  property. 

The  following  exhibits  the  quotas  of  the  State  under  respective 
calls  since  commencement  of  the  war,  and  the  number  of  men 
furnished  to  the  national  armies  to  the  present  time  : 

Our  quota,  under  calls  of  the  President 

In  1861,  was 47,785 

In  1862,     "    32,685 

In  1863,     "    64,630 

In  1864,     "    52,260 

Total  quotas  under  all  calls  prior  to  Dec.  1,  1864 197,360 

During  the  years  1861,  1862,  and  to  the  18th  day  of  October, 
1863,  the  State,  by  voluntary  enlistment,  had  exceeded  its  quota 
under  all  calls.  Prior  to  that  date  settlements  had  not  been  made 
with  the  "War  Department,  because  of  the  voluntary  action  of  our 
people  in  meeting  the  requirements  of  the  country  and  their  per- 
sistence in  organizing,  with  unparalleled  enthusiasm  and  determi- 
nation, a  larger  number  of  regiments  and  batteries  than  the  actual 
quotas  under  each  levy  called  for.  Prior  to  17th  October,  1863, 
the  State  had  furnished  and  been  credited  with  one  hundred  and 
twenty-five  thousand  three  hundred  and  twenty-one  (125,321)  men 
— a  surplus  of  eight  thousand  one  hundred  and  fifty-one  (8,151) 
over  all  other  calls,  to  be  credited  to  our  quota  for  that  call,  and 
which  reduced  it  to  19,779  men ;  and  we  claimed,  besides,  other 
credits,  which  could  not  be  fully  adjusted  because  of  imperfect 
record  of  citizens  (and  in  some  cases  whole  companies  of  Illinoisans) 


33 

who  had  entered  the  service  in  regiments  of  other  States,  at  times 
when  our  quotas  on  special  calls  were  full,  and  because  of  which  I 
was  compelled  to  decline  their  services.  Six  thousand  and  thirty, 
two  (6,032)  citizens  of  Illinois  prior  to  that  date  had  been  enlisted 
in  Missouri  regiments,  and  residents  of  Missouri  had  enlisted  and 
been  mustered  in  Illinois  regiments,  which  left  a  credit,  as  between 
the  States,  in  favor  of  Illinois  of  4,373  men. 

After  adjustment  of  credit  of  125,321,  at  and  prior  to  October, 

1863,  it  was  ascertained  we  were  entitled  to  an  additional  credit  of 
10,947,  which  increased  the  number  enrolled  in  our  own  regiments, 
and  for  which  we  were  entitled  to  credit  prior  to  that  call,  to  136,- 
268 — leaving  the  whole  account,  at  that  date,  thus : 

Quotas  under  all  calls  to  October,  1863.. 145,100 

Credits  for  enlistments  in  Illinois  regiments.. 136,268 

Balance  in  Missouri  regiments 4,373 

/  140,641 

Balance  due  the  government 4,459 

At  this  time  there  was  a  claim  made  by  the  State  for  volunteers 
previously  furnished,  which  would  more  than  account  for  the  bal- 
ance against  us  of  4,459.  This  adjustment  was  made  in  February, 

1864.  and  was  exclusive  of  old  regiments  re-enlisting  as  veterans, 
and  disclosed  the  fact  that  at  the  time  the  first  draft  was  ordered, 
viz :  January  1st,  1864,  under  the  call  of  October,  1863,  Illinois 
had  exceeded  her  quota,  and,  by  the  voluntarily  demonstrated 
patriotism  of  her  people,  was  free  from  draft. 

The  unadjusted  balances  of  the  State  claimed  as  above  were 
allowed  in  the  settlement  made  with  the  "War  Department,  in 
August  last. 

Between  the  first  day  of  October,  1863,  and  the  first  day  of 
December,  1864,  we  have  furnished  and  received  additional  credits 
for  fifty -five  thousand  six  hundred  and  nineteen  (55.619)  men 
which,  added  to  credit  of  140,641  to  October  1,  1863,  makes  19Y,- 
260  men,  which  leaves  our  whole  account  thus : 

Quotas  of  the  State  under  all  calls  prior  to  Dec.  1, 1864. .  .197,360 
Total  credits  for  three  years  volunteers,  drafted  men  and 

substitutes  to  Dec.  1,  1864 ,. .  .197,260 

Balance  due  the  government  Dec.  1,  1864 ^V.'*1     100 


34: 


The  deficit  of  one  hundred  men  has  been  more  than  balanced  by 
enlistments  during  the  month  of  December,  1864. 

Of  the  entire  quota  of  one  hundred  and  ninety-seven  thousand 
three  hundred  and  sixty  (197,360)  men,  we  have  furnished  one 
hundred  and  ninety-four  thousand  one  hundred  and  ninety-eight 
(194,198)  volunteers  and  three  thousand  and  sixty-two  (3,062) 
drafted  men — organized  as  follows : 

138  regiments  and  one  battalion  of  infantry. 
17  regiments  of  cavalry. 

o  •/ 

%  regiments  and  8  batteries  of  artillery. 

t-ifj-fj  ,i>j;'.[>  :  MnK'-n.;  Oi-  ,'lw  oilt  *>nrrf&l *fk£ 

ONE    HUNDRED   DAT   TKOOPS. 

In  addition  to  the  foregoing  the  State  has  furnished  thirteen  (13) 
regiments  and  two  companies  of  one  hundred  day  volunteers,  the 
following  being  the  numerical  designation,  name  of  commanding 
officer  and  strength  of  each  : 


No.  of 
regiment. 

Commanding  Officer. 

Aggregate 

132 
188 
134 
135 
136 

m 

138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
145 

C 
C 

853 
851 
878 
85S 
842 
849 
835 
878 
871 
842 
851 
865 
877 
181 

Thaddeus  Phillips  ,  

Walter  W.  McChesney  „  

John  S.  Wolfe  

John  W.  Goodwin  

Stephen  Bronson  

Dudley  C.  Smith  

ipt.  Simon  J.  Stookey,  (Alton  battalion  —  two  companies)  
Total  

11,328 

After  the  fall  of  Vicksburg,  in  1863,  and  General  Sherman's  raid 
into  Mississippi,  Georgia  and  Alabama,  active  military  operations 
were  transferred  from  the  Mississippi  to  Eastern  Tennessee  and 
Georgia.  The  forces  of  the  enemy,  during  the  winter  of  1863-4, 
were  being  largely  increased  and  carefully  prepared  for  a  desperate 
spring  and  summer  campaign,  east  and  west,  and  in  April  he  had 
concentrated  his  strength  for  offensive  operations  in  Virginia  and 
Georgia,  or,  in  the  event  of  our  advance,  for  the  most  determined 


and  bitter  resistance.  To  hold  the  vast  extent  of  country  wrested 
from  the  enemy,  embracing  many  States  and  territories,  many 
thousand  miles  of  sea  coast,  the  whole  length  of  the  Mississippi, 
and  most  of  her  tributaries,  and  protect  our  long  lines  of  sea  and 
river  coast  and  rail  communication,  required  an  immense  stationary 
force.  The  towns  and  cities  surrounding  strongholds,  posts  and 
garrisons,  situated  in  the  midst  of  a  doubtful  and  in  most  part  dis- 
loyal population,  required  too  great  a  portion  of  our  large  army  for 
their  protection  and  defense.  In  view  of  these  circumstances,  and 
of  the  palpable  evidence  which  surrounded  us  that  the  battles  about 
to  be  fought  in  Virginia  by  the  army  under  direct  supervision  of 
Lieutenant-General  Grant,  and  in  Georgia  under  General  Sherman, 
would  doubtless  decide  the  fate  of  the  country,  the  Governors  of 
the  Northwestern  States  believed  that  the  efficiency  of  the  army 
and  the  prospects  of  crowning  victories  to  the  national  arms  would 
be  greatly  increased  by  a  volunteer  force,  immediately  raised,  and 
which  should  occupy  the  'points  already  taken  and  relieve  our  vet- 
eran troops,  and  send  them  forward  to  join  the  main  army  soon  to 
engage  the  effective  forces  of  the  enemy.  I  therefore,  in  connection 
with  Governors  Brough  of  Ohio,  Morton  of  Indiana,  and  Stone  of 
Iowa,  offered  the  President  infantry  troops  for  one  hundred  days' 
service,  to  be  organized  under  regulations  of  the  War  Department, 
and  to  be  clothed,  equipped,  armed,  subsisted,  transported  and  paid 
as  other  United  States  infantry  volunteers,  and  to  serve  in  fortifi- 
cations wherever  their  services  might  be  required,  within  or  with- 
out the  State.  There  being  no  law  authorizing  it,  no  bounty  could 
be  paid  or  the  service  credited  on  any  draft.  Our  quota  offered 
was  20,000  men,  which  was  a  fair  proportion  to  the  aggregate 
number  (85,000)  to  be  made  up  by  all  of  said  States. 

Our  regiments,  under  this  call,  performed  indispensable  and  in- 
valuable services  in  Kentucky,  Tennessee  and  Missouri,  relieving 
garrisons  of  veteran  troops,  who  were  sent  to  the  front,  took  part 
in  the  Atlanta  campaign,  several  of  them,  also  composing  a  part 
of  that  glorious  army  that  has  penetrated  the  very  vitals  of  the  re- 
bellion, and  plucked  some  of  the  brightest  laurels  that  this  heroic 
age  nas  woven  for  the  patriot  soldier.  Five  of  our  one  hundred 
days  regiments,  after  their  turn  of  service  had  expired,  voluntarily 
extended  their  engagement  with  the  government,,  and  marched  to 
the  relief  of  the  gallant  and  able  Kosecrans,  who,  at  the  head  of 


an  inadequate  and  poorly  appointed  army,  was  contending  against 
fearful  odds  for  the  preservation  of  St.  Louis  and  the  safety  of 
Missouri.  The  officers  and  soldiers  of  these  regiments  evinced 
the  highest  soldierly  qualities,  and  fully  sustained  the  proud  record 
our  veterans  have  ever  maintained  in  the  field — and  the  State  and 
country  owe  them  lasting  gratitude,  and  we  have,  in  a  great  degree, 
to  attribute  our  successes  in  Virginia  and  Georgia  to  the  timely  or- 
ganization and  efficient  services  of  the  one  hundred  day  volunteers, 
furnished  by  all  of  said  States.  The  President  lias,  by  order,  re- 
turned them  the  thanksof  the  government  and  the  nation  for  the 
service  thus  .rendered,  and  accords  the  full  measure  of  praise  to 
them,  as  our  supporters  .and  defenders  in  the  rear,  to  which  the  reg- 
ular reserve  force  of  large  armies  are  always  entitled. 

RECRUITING-    SERVICE. 

The  General  Government  has  aimed  to  divide  the  burden  of 
supplying  troops  for  the  national  army  equally  between  the  loya^ 
States,  and,  according  to  the  best  information  attainable,  I  believe 
the  States  have  responded  fully.  To  .husband  the  resources  of  the 
State,  in  its  number  of  arms-bearing  men,  I  have  thrown  every 
guard  possible  around  the  recruiting  system.  In  1861,  by  proc- 
lamation, issued  in  July,  I  forbade  the  recruitment  of  volunteers 
in  Illinois  for  the  regiments  of  other  States,  and  discouraged 
our  citizens  from  leaving  the  State  to  join  the  organizations  of 
others — but  in  that  year  was  partially  unsuccessful,  because  of  the 
small  number  of  regiments  accepted  in  proportion  to  the  very 
large  number  of  our  citizens  who  tendered  their  services.  Dili- 
gent efforts  were  made  to  trace  out  organizations  and  individuals 
who  left  the  State  under  these  circumstances,  and  the  records  in 
the  Adjutant  General's  office  exhibit  our  success  in  reclaiming  sev- 
eral whole  regiments,  and  nearly  10,000  men,  distributed  through 
various  regiments  of  Missouri  and  other  sister  States. 

In  1861  and  1862  a  few  arrests  were  made  for  violation  of  the 
order,  and  parties  guilty,  upon  surrendering  the  recruits,  were  dis- 
missed, upon  obligation  to  observe  the  prohibition  in  future.  In 
1863  there  was  no  marked  violation  of  the  regulation  ;  but,  in  1864, 
when  the  emergencies  and  casualties  of  the  service  demanded  the 
reinforcement  and  large  increase  of  the  army,  many  of  the  States 
became  almost  exhausted  in  number  of  citizens  who  could  volunta- 


37 

rily  offer  their  services  to  the  country  ;  and,  to  protect  their  agricul. 
tural,  manufacturing  and  other  industrial  interests,  their  legisla- 
tures had  provided,  by  law,  for  the  payment  of  large  bounties,  from 
their  State  treasuries,  and  authorized  towns  and  counties  also  to 
pay  bounties,  and  to  levy  a  tax  to  provide  for  the  same — thus  afford- 
ing additional  inducements  (to  residents  of  other  States,  not  ma- 
king such  provisions,)  to  the  general  bounty  and  premium  provided 
by  laws  of  Congress. 

The  enrollment  act  of  last  Congress  also  provided  for  enlistment 
of  volunteer  recruits  in  insurrectionary  districts,  and  provided  for 
the  appointment,  by  Governors  of  the  respective  States,  of  agents 
to  recruit  there,  at  State  expense,  and  that  volunteers,  thus  en- 
listed, should  be  credited  to  the  quota  of  the  town,  township, 
ward  of  a  city,  precinct,  or  election  district  of  a  county  procuring 
them. 

As  there  was  no  State  law  for,  or  appropriation  made,  from  which 
to  pay  the  expenses  of  this  system,  I  was  unable  to  employ  agents 
to  recruit  for  the  State ;  but  in  my  proclamation  of  August  9th, 
1864,  announcing  the  quotas  and  credits  to  July  18th,  1864,  and 
calling  upon  the  people  to  fill  our  quota  by  volunteering,  this  sys- 
tem was  fully  presented,  and  towns,  cities  and  districts  invited,  at 
their  own  expense,  to  avail  themselves  of  the  privileges  of  the  law 
and  orders  of  the  war  department,  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  to 
meet  delinquencies  of  past  calls,  or  to  fill  up  their  quotas  under 
call  of  July  18th,  1864,  then  pending.  A  very  small  number  had 
agents  appointed,  but,  I  believe,  without  practical  results — the  in- 
ducements they  were  enabled  to  offer  being  inferior  to  those  pre- 
sented by  agents  of  other  States. 

To  provide  against  the  enlistment  of  citizens  of  this  State,  or 
persons,  white  and  colored,  who  had  taken  refuge  here  from  States 
or  districts  in  rebellion,  in  the  regiments,  or  to  be  used  as  the  con- 
tribu^on  of  wealthy  counties  or  localities  of  other  States,  which 
would  result  in  increasing  the  burdens  of  war  (either  in  men  or 
dollars)  upon  our  citizens,  I  deemed  it  proper  to  issue  the  following 
proclamation : 

EXECUTIVE  OFFICE,  ) 

SPRINGFIELD,.  ILLINOIS,  August  6,  1864.     | 

It  is  hereby  ordered  that  no  recruiting  for  companies  or  regiments  of  other  States 
shall  be  permitted  in  this  State. 
All  recruiting  officers  or  agents  for  other  States,  and  the  agent  or  attorneys  of  com- 


panies  organized  to  procure  substitutes  for  persons  drafted  in  other  States,  are  hereby 
peremptorily  forbidden  to  recruit  or  enlist  volunteers  or  substitutes  within  this  State 
during  the  war. 

This  order  shall  apply  to  all  residents  or  citizens  of  Illinois,  as  well  as  the  citizens 
of  other  States,  recruiting  within  this  State  for  regiments  of  other  States. 

All  recruiting  agents  for  Illinois  regiments,  Provost  Marshals,  and  loyal  citizens  are 
requested  to  give  notice  of  any  violation  of  this  order,  that  offenders  may  be  arrested 
and  punished,  and  the  objects  designed  by  this  limitation  to  recruiting  entirely  accom- 
plished. 

Illinois  has  heretofore  promptly  responded  to  all  calls  for  volunteers,  and  it  behooves 
every  good  citizen  to  contribute  every  reasonable  influence  to  sustain  our  veteran 
regiments,  which  have  so  honored  the  State  in  efforts  to  sustain  the  Union,  and  I  earn 
estly  entreat  all  citizens  who  desire  to  enter  the  military  service  of  the  country  to 
join  Illinois  regiments  only.  As  our  brave  boys  have  struggled  to  give  our  State  its 
proud  position,  let  us  eschew  all  selfish  inducements  (presented  by  other  States)  and 
generously  sustain  them  and  our  veteran  organizations  in  the  field. 

RICHARD  YATES,   Governor. 

Besides  enforcing  the  view  that  the  State  should  not  be  called 
npon  or  allowed  to  furnish  more  than  her  quota,  I  was  impelled  to 
insist  upon  her  husbanding  our  resources  for  the  future  demands  of 
the  country ;  also  by  a  desire  to  have  our  entire  quota  assigned  to 
our  old  regiments,  that  they  might,  without  consolidation,  retain 
their  names  and  organizations —rendered  illustrious  by  gallant 
deeds  on  scores  of  battle  fields — and  in  justice  to  tried  officers, 
who  ceuld  not  be  promoted  until  their  companies  and  regiments 
were  full ;  and  because  of  the  immediate  effectiveness  of  new  re- 
cruits, in  veteran  organizations,  under  experienced  officers.  I  am 
glad  to  state  that  the  Secretary  of  War  issued  orders  to  the  United 
States  officers,  on  duty  in  this  State,  to  enforce  the  provisions  of 
the  order. 

In  prompt  support  of  the  government  at  home,  and  in  response 
to  calls  for  troops,  the  State  stands  pre-eminently  in  the  lead 
among  her  loyal  sisters ;  and  every  click  of  the  telegraph  heralds 
the  perseverance  of  Illinois  Generals  and  the  indomitable  courage 
and  bravery  of  Illinois  sons,  in  every  engagement  of  the  war. 
Our  State  has  furnished  a  very  large  contingent  to  the  fighting 
strength  of  our  National  army.  In  the  west,  the  history  of  the 
war  is  brilliant  'with  recitations  of  the  skill  and  prowess  of  our 
general,  field,  staff  and  line  officers,  and  hundreds  of  Illinois  boys 
in  the  ranks  are  specially  singled  out  and  commended  by  Generals 
Grant,  Sherman,  and  otiier  Generals  of  this  and  other  States,  for 
their  noble  deeds  and  manly  daring  on  hotly  contested  fields. 


One  gallant  Illinois  boy  is  mentioned  as  being  the  first  to  plant  the 
stars  and  stripes  at  Donelson ;  another,  at  a  critical  moment,  anti- 
cipates the  commands  of  a  superior  officer,  in  hurrying  forward  an 
ammunition  train,  and  supervising  hand  grenades,  by  cutting  short 
the  fuses  of  heavy  shell,  and  hurling  them,  with  his  own  hands,  in 
front  of  an  assaulting  column,  into  a  strong  redoubt  at  Vicksburg; 
and  the  files  of  my  office  and  those  of  the  Adjutant  General  are 
full  of  letters  mentioning  for  promotion  hundreds  of  private  sol- 
diers, who  have,  on  every  field  of  the  war,  distinguished  themselves 
by  personal  gallantry,  at  trying  and  critical  periods.  The  list  of 
promotions  from  the  field  and  staff  of  our  regiments  to  Lieutenant 
and  Major  Generals,  for  gallant  conduct  and  the  prerequisites  for 
efficient  and  successful  command,  compare  brilliantly  with  the 
names  supplied  by  all  other  States,  and  is  positive  proof  of  the 
wisdom  of  the  Government  in  conferring  honors  and  responsibili- 
ties ;  and  the  patient,  vigilant  and  tenacious  record  made  by  our 
veteran  regiments,  in  the  camp,  on  the  march  and  in  the  field,  is 
made  a  subject  of  praise  by  the  whole  country,  and  will  be  the 
theme  for  poets  and  historians  of  all  lands,  for  all  time. 

Prominent  among  the  many  distinguished  names  who  have 
borne  their  early  commissions  from  Illinois,  I  refer,  with  special 
pride,  to  the  character  and  priceless  services  to  the  country  of 
Ulysses  S.  Grant.  In  April,  1861,  he  tendered  his  personal  servi- 
ces to  me,  saying  "  that  he  had  been  the  recipient  of  a  military  ed- 
ucation at  West  Point,  and  that  now,  when  the  country  was  in- 
volved in  a  war  for  its  preservation  and  safety,  he  thought  it  his 
duty  to  offer  his  services  in  defense  of  the  Union,  and  that  he  would 
esteem  it  a  privilege  to  be  assigned  to  any  position  where  he  could 
be  useful."  The  plain,  straight  forward  demeanor  of  the  man,  and 
the  modesty  and  earnestness  which  characterized  his  offer  of  assist- 
ance, at  once  awakened  a  lively  interest  in  him,  and  impressed  me 
with  a  desire  to  secure  his  counsel  for  the  benefit  of  volunteer 
organizations  then  forming  for  government  service.  At  first,  I 
assigned  him  a  desk  in  the  Executive  office ;  and  his  familiarity 
with  military  organization  and  regulations  made  him  an  invaluable 
assistant  in  my  own  and  the  office  of  the  Adjutant  General.  Soon 
his  admirable  qualities  as  a  military  commander  became  apparent, 
and  I  assigned  him  to  command  of  the  camps  of  organization  at 
"  Camp  Yates,"  Springfield,  "  Camp  Grant,"  Mattoon,  and  "Camp 
Douglas,"  at  Anna,  Union  county,  at  which  the  7th,  8th,  9th,  10th, 


4:0 

llth,  12th,  18th,  19th  and  21st  regiments  of  Illinois  volunteers, 
raised  under  the  call  of  the  President,  of  the  15th  of  April,  and 
under  the  "  Ten  Regiment  Bill,"  of  the  extraordinary  session  of 
the  Legislature,  convened  April  23d,  1861,  were  rendezvoused. 
His  employment  had  special  reference  to  the  organization  and  mus- 
ter of  these  forces — the  first  six  into  United  States,  and  the  last 
three  into  the  State  service.  This  was  accomplished  about  the 
tenth  day  of  May,  1861,  at  which  time  he  left  the  State  for  a  brief 
period,,  on  a  visit  to  his  father,  at  Covington,  Kentucky. 

The  21st  regiment  of  Illinois  volunteers,  raised  in  Macon,  Cum- 
berland, Piatt,  Douglas,  Moultrie,  Edgar,  Clay,  Clark,  Crawford 
and  Jasper  counties,  for  thirty-day  State  service,  organized  at  the 
camp  at  Mattoon,  preparatory  to  three  years'  service  for  the  gov- 
ernment, had  become  very  much  demoralized,  under  the  thirty 
days'  experiment,  and  doubts  arose  in  relation  to  their  acceptance 
for  a  longer  period.  I  was  much  perplexed  to  find  an  efficient  and 
experienced  officer  to  take  command  of  the  regiment  and  take  it 
into  the  three  years'  service.  I  ordered  the  regiment  to  Camp 
Yates,  and  after  consulting  Hon.  Jesse  K.  Dubois,  who  had  many 
friends  in  the  regiment,  and  Col.  John  S.  Loomis,  Assistant  Adju- 
tant General,  who  wa?  at  the  time  in  charge  of  the  Adjutant  Gen- 
eral's office,  and  on  terms  of  personal  intimacy  with  Grant,  I  de- 
cided to  offer  the  command  to  him,  and  accordingly  telegraphed 
Captain  Grant,  at  Covington,  Kentucky,  tendering  him  the  Colo- 
nelcy. He  immediately  reported,  accepting  the  commission, 
taking  rank  as  Colonel  of  that  regiment  from  the  15th  day  of  June, 
1861.  Thirty  days  previous  to  that  time  the  regiment  numbered 
over  one  thousand  men,  but  in  consequence  of  laxity  in  discipline 
of  the  first  commanding  officer,  and  other  discouraging  obstacles 
connected  with  the  acceptance  of  troops  at  that  time,  but  six  hun- 
dred and  three  men  were  found  willing  to  enter  the  three  years' 
service.  In  less  than  ten  days  Col.  Grant  filled  the  regiment  to 
the  maximum  standard,  and  brought  it  to  a  state  of  discipline  sel- 
dom attained  in  the  volunteer  service,  in  so  short  a  time.  His  was 
the  only  regiment  that  left  the  camp  of  organization  on  foot.  He 
marched  from  Springfield  to  the  Illinois  river,  but,  in  an  emergency 
requiring  troops  to  operate  against  Missouri  rebels,  the  regiment 
was  transported  by  rail  to  Quincy,  and  Col.  Grant  was  assigned  to 
command  for  the  protection  of  the  Quincy  and  Palmyra,  and  Han- 


41 

nibal  and  St.  Joseph  railroads.  He  soon  distinguished  himself  as 
a  regimental  commander,  in  the  field,  and  his  claims  for  increased 
rank  were  recognized  by  his  friends  in  Springfield,  and  his  promo- 
tion insisted  upon,  before  his  merits  and  services  were  fairly  un- 
derstood at  Washington.  His  promotion  was  made  upon  the 
ground  of  his  military  education,  fifteen  years-'  services  as  a  Lieu- 
tenant and  Captain  in  the  regular  army,  (during  which  time  he  was 
distinguished  in  the  Mexican  war,)  his  great  success  in  organizing 
and  disciplining  his  regiment,  and  for  his  energetic  and  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  campaign  in  North  Missouri,  and  the  earnestness 
with  which  he  entered  into  the  great  work  of  waging  war  against 
the  traitorous  enemies  of  his  country.  His  first  great  battle  was  at 
Belmont,  an  engagement  which  became  necessary  to  protect  our 
Southwestern  army  in  Missouri  from  overwhelming  forces  being 
rapidly  consolidated  against  it  from  Arkansas,  Tennessee  and  Co- 
lumbus, Kentucky.  The  druggie  was  a  desperate  one,  but  the 
tenacity  and  soldierly  qualities  of  Grant  and  his  invincible  little 
army,  gave  us  the  first  practical  victory  in  the  west.  The  balance 
of  his  shining  record  is  indelibly  written  in  the  history  of  Henry, 
Donelson,  Shiloh,  Corinth,  Yicksburg.  Chattanooga,  The  Wilder- 
ness, siege  of  Richmond,  and  the  intricate  and  difficult  command 
as  Lieutenant  General  of  the  armies  of  the  Union — written  in  the 
blood  and  sacrifices  of  the  heroic  braves  who  have  fallen,  following 
him  to  glorious  victory — written  upon  the  hearts  and  memories  of 
the  loyal  millions  who  are  at  the  hearth-stones  of  our  gallant  and 
unconquerable  "  Boys  in  Blue."  The  impress  of  his  genius  stamps 
our  armies,  from  one  end  of  the  Republic  to  the  other ;  and  the 
secret  of  his  success  in  executing  his  plans,  is  in  the  love,  enthusi- 
asm and  confidence  he  inspires  in  the  soldier  in  the  ranks,  the 
harmony>and  respect  of  his  subordinate  officers,  his  own  respect 
for  and  deference  to  the  wishes  and  commands  of  the  President, 
and  his  sympathy  with  the  government  in  its  war  policy. 

As  evidence  of  the  materials  of  the  State  of  Illinois  for  war  pur- 
poses, at  the  beginning  of  the  war,  and  a  pleasing  incident  of 
Grant's  career,  I  refer  to  an  article  in  a  Yicksburg  paper,  the 
"  Weekly  Sun,"  of  May  13th,  1861,  which  ridicules ,our  enfeebled 
and  unprepared  condition,  and  says:  "An  official  report  made  to 
Governor  Yates,  of  Illinois,  by  one  Captain  Grant,  says  that  after 
examining  all  the  State  armories  he  finds  the  muskets  amount  to 
just  nine  hundred  and  four,  and  of  them  only  sixty  in  serviceable 


4:2 

condition."  Now  the  name  of  that  man,  who  was  looking  up  the 
rusty  muskets  in  Illinois,  is  glory-crowned  with  shining  victories, 
and  will  nil  thousands  of  history's  brightest  pages  to  the  end  of 
time.  I  know  well  the  secret  of  his  power,  for  afterwards,  when  I 
saw  him  at  head  quarters,  upon  the  march,  and  on  the  battle  field, 
in  his  plain,  thread-bare  uniform,  modest  in  his  deportment,  careful 
of  the  wants  of  the  humblest  soldier,  personally  inspecting  all  the 
dispositions  and  divisions  of  his  army,  calm  and  courageous  amidst 
the  most  destructive  fire  of  the  enemy,  it  was  evident  that  he  had 
the  confidence  of  every  man,  from  the  highest  officer  down  to  the 
humblest  drummer  boy  in  his  whole  command.  His  Generalship 
rivals  that  of  Alexander  and  Napoleon,  and  his  armies  eclipse  those 
of  Greece  and  Rome,  in  their  proudest  days  of  imperial  grandeur. 
He  is  a  gift  of  the  Almighty  Father  to  THE  NATION,  in  its  ex- 
tremity, and  he  has  won  his  way  to  the  exalted  position  he  occupies 
through  his  own  great  perseverance,  skill  and  indomitable  bravery, 
and  it  is  inexcusably  vain  for  any  man  to  claim  that  he  has  made 
Grant,  or  that  he  has  given  Grant  to  the  country,  or  that  he  can 
control  his  great  genius  and  deeds  for  the  private  ends  of  selfish 
and  corrupt  political  ambition. 
bttfiBifflO'JlfojJEl  mi  «B  bns  .Uotaibtftlo  s^aia  ^a.on 

WAR   EXPENDITURES. 

}4iuwo!iot  .U;>iUj'i  -jv.sii  orf'nr  %O'«rid  oioiou  osii  to  -.•}'>>*' 

The  inability  of  the  government  to  clothe,  arm,  subsist,  trans- 
port and  pay  the  first  quota  of  troops,  devolved  upon  the  State  ex- 
tensive expenditures. 

The  Legislature,  specially  convened  in  April,  1861,  provided  for 
supplying  troops  raised  under  the  first  calls,  and  passed  laws  au- 
thorising the  issuing  of  bonds  to  defray  war  expenses,  and  the  ap- 
pointment of  a  Board  of  Army  Ofiicers,  to  audit  accounts.  This 
board  were  governed  by  the  provisions  of  the  State  law  in  adjust- 
ing war  claims,  and,  upon  their  recommendation,  approved  by  the 
Governor,  the  Auditor  issued  warrants  on  the  Treasurer  to  claim- 
ants. The  difficulty  of  getting  accounts  of  the  State  adjusted,  and 
reimbursements  from  the  United  States,  created  the  necessity  of 
frequent  journeys  to  Washington,  by  myself  and  agents,  as  it  was 
found  impossible,  in  the  immense  pressure  upon  the  departments, 
to  accomplish  much  without  persistent  personal  application.  It  was 
at  length  found  necessary  to  adopt  the  plan  of  other  States,  and 
appoint  a  State  agent  there.  Hon.  Thos.  H.  Campbell,  formerly  State 


43 

Auditor,  was  appointed,  and  gave  constant  attention  to  the  settle- 
ment of  the  State  accounts,  up  to  the  time  of  his  death.  After- 
wards, Hon.  James  C.  Conkling  was  employed  to  go  to  Washington 
and  press  the  settlement  of  our  accounts,  and  succeeded  in  procur- 
ing payment  of  sufficient  sums  to  relieve  the  Treasurer  from  the 
pressure  of  claimants  holding  warrants  on  the  war  fund.  But  owing 
to  the  immense  pressure  of  business  upon  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, and  difficulties  experienced  in  making  satisfactory  explana- 
tions of  accounts  suspended  and  disallowed,  he  found  it  impossi- 
ble, at  the  time  of  his  last  visit,  to  secure  a  final  adjustment  of  our 
claims. 

In  March,  1864,  I  sent  Col.  John  S.  Loomis,  who  had  been  con- 
nected with  the  State  Department  from  the  commencement  of  the 
war — first  as  Assistant  Adjutant  General,  and  recently,  as  my  prin- 
cipal Aid-de-Camp — to  Washington,  with  instructions  to  urge  final 
adjustment  of  all  our  accounts.  His  extensive  acquaintance  with 
the  origin  and  history  of  our  military  organization  and  contract- 
ing and  settlement  of  war  claims,  enabled  him  to  make  full  expla- 
nation of  our  vouchers,  and  prosecute  appeals  from  what  was  con- 
sidered erroneous  decisions  of  adjusting  officers  of  the  Treasury, 
in  disallowing  and  suspending  a  part  of  our  claims.  He  was  ac- 
companied by  Gen.  John  Wood,  Quartermaster  General  of  the 
State,  whose  services  were  required  to  aid  settlement  of  the  class 
of  claims  originating  in  his  department.  From  the  report  of  Col. 
Loomis,  and  copies  of  his  appeals  on  suspended  and  disallowed  ac- 
counts, herewith  transmitted,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  claims  of  the 
State  against  the  government,  filed  in  the  Treasury  Department, 
for  war  expenses,  amounted  to  three  millions  eight  hundred  and 
twelve  thousand  five  hundred  and  twenty-five  dollars  and  fifty-four 
cents  ($3,812,525  54) ;  of  which  amount  there  has  been  allowed, 
on  various  settlements  with  the  Third  Auditor,  three  millions  seven 
hundred  and  twenty-six  thousand  seven  hundred  and  ninety-two 
dollars  and  eighty-seven  dints  ($3,726,792  87) ;  leaving  a  difference 
between  the  claims  and  allowances,  in  that  department,  of  eighty- 
five  thousand  seven  hundred  and  thirty-two  dollars  and  sixty-seven 
cents  ($85,732  67)  suspended  and  disallowed,  because,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  said  Auditor  the  law  did  not  sufficiently  provide  for 
them.  Of  the  amount  allowed  by  the  Third  Auditor,  and  passed 
to  the  Second  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  it  will  also  be  seen, 
that  the  Comptroller  suspended  nearly  all  of  our  State  claims  upon 


ground  of  insufficiency  of  vouchers,  but  which  decision,  upon  the 
appeal  of  Col.  Loomis,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  reversed^ 
and  ordered  a  settlement  of  the  accounts.  An  appeal  was  also 
taken  upon  the  suspension  and  disallowment  of  accounts  in  the 
Third  Auditor's  office  ($85,732  67),  which  is  set  forth  in  the  re- 
port. 

I  am  recently  advised,  by  letter  from  the  Treasury  Department, 
that  upon  last  settlement  there  was  found  to  be  due  the  State  four 
hundred  and  sixty-eight  thousand  two  hundred  and  sixty-five  dol- 
lars and  ninety-eight  cents,  ($46  ,265  98,)  and  that  the  amount  of 
suspensions  and  disallowances  has  been  reduced  to  twenty-seven 
thousand  three  hundred  and  ninety  dollars  and  seventy-four  cents, 
($27,39074.) 

Thirty  thousand  dollars  have  recently  been  paid  by  the  govern- 
ment on  the  balance  found  due  on  our  accounts ;  which  sum  is  suffi- 
cient to  pay  off  all  warrants  drawn  upon  the  State  Treasury  against 
the  war  tund. 

There  being  no  provision  made  by  the  Legislature  for  paying 
contingent  expenses  of  the  State  government  or  for  expenses 
of  prosecuting  claims  against  the  government,  the  expenses  in- 
curred since  the  death  of  Mr.  Campbell  have  been  advanced  by 
these  agents,  who  should  be  reimbursed  by  the  State. 

In  this  connection,  I  desire  to  call  your  attention  specially  to  the 
report  of  Colonel  Loomis.  It  gives  a  complete  history  of  a  ne- 
cessity for  all  the  expenses  incurred  by  the  State  for  the  General 
Government,  and,  in  my  opinion,  clearly  establishes  the  right  of 
the  State  to  reimbursement  of  every  dollar  we  have  advanced,  and 
which  yet  remain  suspended.  Colonel  Loomis'  labors  in  the  adjust- 
ment of  our  war  accounts  have  been  invaluable,  and  it  is  recom- 
mended that  a  sufficient  appropriation  be  made  for  his  services  and 
expenses. 

REPORT    OF   THE    ADJUTANTT GENERAL. 

I  regret  that  on  account  of  the  severe  illness  of  Adjutant  Gene- 
ral A.  C.  Fuller,  in  November  and  December  last,  he  has  been 
unable  to  submit  his  regular  biennial  report.  I  transmit  herewith 
a  communication  from  him,  exhibiting  the  expenses  of  his  depart- 
ment during  the  past  two  years,  the  inadequate  appropriations 
made  by  the  Legislature  to  meet  such  expenses,  and  the  amount 


45 

» 

required  to  pay  the  balance  due  various  persons  therein  mentioned, 
and  I  recommend  that  an  appropriation  be  made  at  an  early  day 
to  pay  it. 

I  have  also  lately  inspected  the  Adjutant  General's  office,  and 
deem  it  proper  to  say,  that  it  is  as  complete  in  all  its  arrangements 
and  in  the  perfection  of  its  system  and  method  as  any  similar  office 
in  the  United  States.  General  Fuller  has  been  a  most  able,  faith- 
ful and  energetic  officer,  and  is  entitled  to  the  gratitude  of  the 
State. 

THE    STATE    SANITARY   COMMISSION. 

During  the  first  year  of  the  war  our  soldiers  in  the  field  received 
their  supplies  of  sanitary  stores  principally  through  "Soldiers'  Aid 
Societies,"  which  were  established  in  different  parts  of  the  State, 
and  operated  by  the  loyal  wtfmen  of  Illinois,  and  the  very  pratical 
and  patriotic  munificence  of  citizens  of  Chicago,  who  established 
the  "Sanitary  Commission  of  Chicago."  The  operations  of  all 
these  societies  were  conducted  on  the  most  liberal  scale,  and  were 
in  the  highest  degree  useful.  Almost  every  village  and  neighbor- 
hood in  the  State  were  engaged  in  the  noble  work.  Humane  and 
large  hearted  men  contributed  bountiful  supplies  of  money  and 
material,  and  loyal  and  patriotic  women  plied  the  needle  and  pre- 
pared articles  of  food  and  stores  of  every  description,  indispensa- 
ble to  the  soldier ;  and  the  agents  of  these  no'ble  men  and  women 
covered  the  field  with  ambulances  and  filled  the  hospitals  with  ap- 
pliances for  the  sick  and  wounded.  These  Soldiers'  Aid  Societies 
were  the  nucleus  for  all  the  great  sanitary  fairs  which  have  so  boun- 
tifully replenished  the  treasuries  of  the  United  States  and  Chris- 
tian Commissions. 

The  government,  in  the  early  part  of  the  war,  depended  upon 
the  States  for  supplies  for  the  regiments  of  each  State  entering  the 
United  States  service,  and  from  the  embarrassed  position  attendant 
upon  the  organization  of  so  large  an  army,  it  was  impossible  to 
provide  so  many  at  the  right  time  and  place  with  sanitary  supplies. 
Appeals  came  to  me,  as  Governor  of  the  State,  from  agents  already 
in  the  field,  and  from  surgeons  and  commanding  officers,  urging  the 
forwarding  of  sanitary  stores,  and  I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  render 
the  aid  of  the  State  to  the  extent  of  my  power,  by  sending  relief 
to  the  brave  men  who  had  with  such  enthusiasm  and  patriotic  de- 


46 

« 

votiom  to    country,  to    peril    health,  life  and   property    for    the 
preservation  of  the  Union. 

On  the  20th  of  August,  1862,  I  established  a  State  Sanitary 
Bureau,  and  assigned  charge  of  the  department  to  Colonel 
John  Williams,  Commissary  General  of  the  State,  to  whom  all 
communications  and  supplies  were  to  be  sent  and  distributed.  I 
then  addressed  a  circular  to  the  people  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
soliciting  contributions  of  money  and  supplies,  and  requesting 
them  to  forward  them  to  this  commission.  As  proof  of  the  libe- 
ral response  of  the  people,  both  in  money  and  supplies,  I 
take  pleasure  in  referring  you  to  the  comprehensive  report 
of  Colonel  "Williams,  set  forth  in  "Keport  of  Transactions 
of  the  Illinois  State  Sanitary  Bureau,"  and  transmitted  herewith, 
and  I  take  special  pleasure  in  referring  to  the  patient  labors  of 
Colonel  Williams,  who,  during  these  long  years  of  war,  has  afforded 
me  invaluable  advice  and  assistance  in  discharging  our  mutual 
obligations  to  the  people  and  the  army.  Upon  his  advice  and 
the  enlarged  and  extensive  field  of  usefulness  prepared  for  us  by 
the  liberality  of  the  people,  in  subscriptions,  I  changed  the  organi- 
zation of  the  Sanitary  Bureau  on  the  12th  day  of  September,  1863, 
by  establishing  the  "Illinois  State  Sanitary  Commission,"  with 
Colonel  John  Williams,  Hon.  William  Butler,  John  P.  Reynolds, 
Esq.,  Robert  Irwin,  Esq.,  and  Eliphalet  B.  Hawley,  Esq.,  consti- 
tuted as  a  Board  of  Directors,  to  supervise  and  control  the  opera- 
tions of  the  Commission,  and  referred  to  this  board  the  annual  re- 
port of  the  "Sanitary  Bureau,"  embracing  a  complete  statement  of 
receipts  and  disbursements  of  stores  and  moneys  contributed  by 
citizens  of  the  State  for  sanitary  purposes.  The  "Sanitary 
Bureau,"  to  this  time,  had  received,  in  addition  to  a  large  amount 
of  sanitary  stores,  twenty-eight  thousand  dollars,  ($28,000,)  and 
expended  twenty  thousand  dollars,  ($20,000,)  leaving  a  balance 
of  eight  thousand  dollars  ($8,000)  to  be  transferred  to  the  treasury 
of  the  "Illinois  State  Sanitary  Commission."  A  statement  of  the 
receipts  and  disbursements  of  this  com  mission,  from  its  organization 
to  the  31st  day  of  December,  1863,  will  be  found  in  the  joint  re- 
port of  the  "State  Sanitary  Bureau"  and  "Illinois  State  Sanitary 
Commission,"  before  referred  to,  and  transactions  since  that  time 
will  soon  be  communicated  to  your  honorable  body. 

The  time  and  services  of  all  the  directors  of  the  "State  Commis- 


47 

sion"  have  been  given  gratuitously,  and  they  have  been  most  faithful 
and  worthy  custodians  of  the  people's  bounty  to  our  brave  boys  in 
the  field. 

t  I  may  be  pardoned  for  doing  merited  justice  to  the  aid  societies 
of  Quincy,  Jacksonville,  Springfield,  Alton,  Bloomington,  Decatur, 
Peoria,  Galesburg,  and  other  cities  and  towns  throughout  the  State, 
and  especially  to  our  metropolitan  city  of  Chicago,  which  through 
her  Board  of  Trade,  her  various  sanitary  associations,  Soldiers' 
Aid  Societies,  and  individual  efforts  of  many  of  her  citizens  have 
rendered  most  munificent  aid,  and,  in  this  respect,  has  fully  come 
up  to  that  high  standard,  which  in  so  many  other  matters  of  patri- 
otic and  public  spirited  enterprise,  has  given  her  justly  a  proud 
rank  among  the  first  cities  of  the  Union. 

REPORTS   W   SANITARY   AGENTS. 

I  refer  the  General  Assembly  to  the  very  interesting  reports  of 
our  sanitary  agents,  and  more  especially  to  the  reports  of  Colonel 
T.  P.  Robb,  who  has  been  agent  for  the  State  from  the  commence- 
ment of  the  war,  and  whose  labors  have  been  most  severe,  arduous 
and  efficient.  I  recommend  that  a  large  number  of  his  reports  be 
printed  and  circulated  for  information  of  the  people.  The  reports 
of  Dr.  O.  M.  Long,  State  Agent  at  New  Orleans,  Edwa/d  I.  Eno, 
at  Nashville,  and  Mr.  Dunseth,  at  Louisville,  and  some  others 
which  I  submit,  contain  valuable  information.  I  also  recommend 
that  the  Legislature  make  proper  appropriations  for  their  services 
and  expenditures. 

STATE   ARSENAL. 

During  the  four  years  past,  vast  quantities  of  ammunition  have 
been  fabricated  at  the  arsenal,  for  field  guns  and  small  arms  for 
the  General  Government.  Arms  have  been  repaired,  cleaned  and 
stored,  and  nearly  all  the  arms  used  by  the  various  arms  of  the 
service  in  the  field  from  this  State,  have  been  received,  stored  and 
issued  through  the  Engineer-in-Chief  of  the  State.  The  State- 
arsenal,  for  the  most  part,  has  been  used  as  an  ordnance  depot  for 
the  General  Government.  Frequently  the  arsenal  has  had  stored 
within  it  more  than  a  million  dollars  worth  of  valuable  property. 
Much  and  constant  labor  has  been  given,  in  arming  and  equipping 
the  various  regiments  of  the  State.  All  the  regiments  for  the  three 


48 

months'  service  were  armed  and  equipped  from  its  stores  ;  also,  all 
the  arms  of  the  various  veteran  regiments  have  been  received  and 
stored,  and,  at  the  expiration  of  furloughs,  re-issued  by  the  officer 
in  charge  of  the  department.  The  arsenal,  located  in  the  midst  of 
the  city,  in  which  is  stored  a  large  quantity  of  materials  liable  to 
explode  at  any  moment,  has  given  rise  to  much  dissatisfaction  on 
the  part  of  the  citizens  living  in  the  immediate  vicinity.  Quite 
recently,  two  fires  occurred  in  the  frame  buildings  adjacent,  and 
it  was  saved  from  destruction  only  by  prompt  efforts  and  the  re- 
moval of  a  stable  adjoining.  In  view  of  the  complaints,  which 
seem  to  be  well  grounded,  I  would  respectfully  suggest  that  the 
General  Assembly,  in  the  exercise  of  sound  discretion,  take  such 
steps  for  its  removal,  or  the  building  of  a  larger  and  more  suita- 
ble ordnance  depot,  beyond  the  limits  of  the  city. 

I  would  also  recommend  that  a  sufficient  appropriation  be  made, 
to  reimburse  the  party,  the  destruction  of  whose  property  was  ne- 
cessary to  save  the  arsenal. 

I  cannot  speak  in  too  high  terms  of  Col.  W.  D.  Crowell,  the 
officer  in  charge  of  the  arsenal.  He  has  shown  the  utmost  faith- 
fulness and  ability  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties. 

THE   MILITIA. 

I  will  not  discuss  the  importance  of  a  military  organization  of 
the  State  further  than  to  refer  you  to  my  former  messages  on  this 
subject,  and  to  add  my  firm  conviction  that  it  is  the  duty  of  this 
General  Assembly  to  pass  a  law  providing  for  putting  the  State 
upon  a  complete  military  footing.  There  have  been  times,  during 
my  administration,  when  I  felt  the  want  of  such  a  law.  The  raids 
into  Pennsylvania  by  Lee,  and  into  Indiana  and  Ohio,  when  those 
States  had  no  military  organization  ;to  meet  them,  show  that  our 
statesmen  have  not  paid  much  attention  to  the  safe  maxim,  "in 
peace  prepare  for  war."  The  threatened  raids  upon  the  Ohio  at 
Paducah  and  Shawneetown,  were  sufficient  to  create  general  alarm. 
If  Forrest  had  been  successful  at  Paducah,  or  Price  had  been  suc- 
cessful in  Missouri,  they  would  have  looked  to  the  rich  fields  of 
Illinois  for  conquest  and  plunder.  The  first  duty  of  every  citizen 
is  to  the  State,  and,  therefore,  let  the  General  Assembly  enact  such 
laws  as  will,  in  case  of  emergency,  upon  the  shortest  notice,  secure 
the  services  of  every  able-bodied  citizen  to  the  State.  At  my  re- 


49 

quest,  one  of  our  best  and  ablest  officers,  Colonel  John  M.  Loomis, 
late  of  the  26th  Illinois  infantry,  has  commenced  the  preparation 
of  a  bill,  which  he  will,  if  desired,  submit  to  the  committee  on 
military  affairs,  for  their  consideration. 

RECORD   OF   ILLINOIS    SOLDIERS. 

I  would  recommend  to  the  Legislature  that  a  work  be  prepared 
and  published,  giviug  the  name,  age,  residence,  occupation,  nativity, 
date  of  enlistment  and  muster  of  every  Illinois  soldier  engaged  in 
government  service  during  this  war.  Also,  a  historical  memoranda, 
embracing  the  casualties  to  officers  and  men,  and  the  marches, 
skirmishes  and  battles  in  which  each  company  and  regiment  have 
participated,  and  the  different  brigade,  division,  army  corps  and 
departments  to  which  they  have  been  attached  during  their  term  of 
service.  This  record  could  be  compiled  from  rolls  and  files  of  the 
Adjutant  General's  office,  and  reports  from  the  field,  which  could, 
with  proper  attention,  be  procured.  To  secure  an  accurate  history 
of  men  and  organizations,  the  work  should  be  immediately  com- 
menced, and  finished  before  regiments  now  in  service  are  disbanded 
on  expiration  of  term  of  enlistment.  The  work  would  be  of  price- 
less value  to  our  State  for  all  time,  and  would  remain  the  most 
glorious  history  of  the  part  we  have  taken  in  the  war  for  defense 
of  the  Union,  that  could  possibly  be  written.  I  sincerely  hope  the 
Legislature  will  seriously  consider  and  carry  out  this  recommenda- 
tion. 

RECOMMENDATIONS   FOR   TAX   FOR   DESTITUTE    FAMILIES   OF    SOLDIERS, 
SCHOOLS  FOR  SOLDIERS7  ORPHANS,  AND  A  STATE  SANITARY  BUREAU. 

I  solicit  the  earnest  consideration  of  the  General  Assembly  to 
several  important  propositions.  First — that  a  tax  be  levied  of  not 
less  than  two  mills  to  the  dollar  during  the  continuance  of  the  war, 
for  the  relief  of  the  destitute  families  of  our  deceased  and  disabled 
soldiers.  In  some  states,  large  provision  has  been  made  by  the 
Legislature  for  this  object,  while  in  ours  none  has  been  made. 
The  cases  of  actual  suffering  which  have  come  to  my  notice  have 
been  very  numerous.  Ohio  levies  a  tax  of  two  mill's  on  the  dollar 
for  this  purpose.  Illinois  is  not  a  parsimonious  people,  and  while 
no  state  has  beat  her  in  the  valor  of  her  troops,  I  trust  none  shall 
in  the  generosity  of  her  people.  Second — that  a  State  Sanitary 
—5 


50 

Bureau  be  established,  and  ample  appropriation  be  made  for  send- 
ing efficient  agents  to  all  the  principal  points  where  our  troops  are 
operating  to  distribute  supplies,  or  to  see  that  our  troops  receive 
their  full  share  of  the  supplies  from  this  State  which  are  required 
to  be  distributed  through  the  United  States  Sanitary  Commission ; 
.also  to  visit  our  sick  and  wounded,  and  minister  to  their  wants  on 
-the  battle-field,  to  aid  them  in  procuring  furloughs,  discharges,  pay, 
•etc.  Indeed,  I  think  that  an  agent  might  be  usefully  employed  in 
accompanying  each  regiment  of  Illinois  Volunteers,  for  the  pur- 
pose of -taking  care  of  the  sick,  burying  the  dead,  marking  the  spot 
•of  burial  and  corresponding  with  the  friends  and  government  at 
home,  and  making  an  annual  report  to  the  Adjutant  General's  of- 
fice of 'the  condition,  wants,  sufferings  and  achievements  of  the  regi- 
ment. Under  the  supervision  of  this  Bureau  might  be  established 
.a  claim  agency,  through  which  all  claims,  pensions  and  bounties 
might  be  collected,  free  of  cost  to  the  claimant. 

Second — each  county  court  should  be  vested  with  authority  to 
erect  a  monument  to  the  officers  and  soldiers  from  that  county 
who  had  died  from  wounds  received  in  battle. 

Third — that  a  stipulated  sum  be  appropriated  by  a  well  digested 
enactmest  of  this  General  Assembly,  with  all  the  proper  details, 
guards  and  restrictions,  setting  apart  a  fund  to  erect  buildings  and 
endow  an  institution  as  a  home  for  the  maintenance  and  education 
of  the  orphan  children  of  our  deceased  or  disabled  soldiers,  or  that 
the  said  fund  be  properly  distributed  for  their  support,  and  their 
education  in  the  district  schools  of  the  State. 

At  Chicago.  Quincy,  Mattoon,  and  other  places  in  the  State, 
patriotic  and  benevolent  individuals  have  already  made  large  sub- 
scriptions towards  the  erection  of  homes  for  the  orphan  children 
of  our  soldiers,  which  entitles  them  to  the  gratitude  of  the  country, 
and  while  very  much  has  been,  and  doubtless  will  be  done  by  pat- 
riotic and  benevolent  men  and  women  in  this  direction,  I  appeal  to 
the  General  Assembly  not  to  suffer  the  performance  of  this  great 
duty  to  depend  upon  the  uncertain  contingency  of  private  benev- 
olence. 

If  this  government,  with  its  million  blessings,  is  to  be  secured  to 
us,  and  transmitted  to  future  generations,  it  will  be  done  by  our 
soldiers.  If  the  army  saves  the  republic,  should  there  not  be  some- 
thing like  adequate  remuneration  to  the  men  who  have  sacrificed 


51 

BO  mnch  for  the  country  ?  and  should  not  we  who  have  remained 
at  home,  having  a  million  bayonets  between  us  and  danger,  eujoy- 
ing  all  the  blessings  of  peace,  and  many  actually  reaping  benefits 
besides  from  the  war,  in  all  kinds  of  business  revived,  provide  for 
the  comfort  of  their  families?  These  brave  boys  comprise  the 
flower  of  the  commonwealth — are  as  intelligent  and  worthy  as  we. 
Many  of  them  have  left  wives  and  children  dependent  upon  them 
for  support,  and,  with  the  present  scanty  pay,  they  find  it  impos- 
sible to  keep  them  from  penury,  and  I  know  hundreds  of  instances 
of  actual  suffering.  It  would  be  a  burning  shame  if  the  exercise  of 
noble  devotion  of  our  citizens,  who  are  willing  to  give  up  their 
homes,  their  wives  and  children,  should  be  the  cause  of  suffering  to 
those  dearer  to  them  than  life.  Let  the  provision  be  ample  enough 
for  every  child  in  Illinois  who  can  say,  "my  father  fell  at  Belmorrt, 
or  at  Donelson,  or  Shiloh,  or  Corinth,  or  Vicksburg,  Stone  Kiver, 
Chattanooga,  Mission  Ridgfe;  Mobile,  the  capture  of  Richmond, 
the  siege  and  destruction  of  Charleston,  or  the  last  grand  triumph- 
ant struggle  between  freedom  and  slavery."  It  is  no  charity  that 
I  ask  you  to  bestow  upon  them — it  is  your  duty  to  take  notice  of 
every  household  saddened  by  the  loss  of  a  father  or  son  in  this 
war,  and  no  man  can  enjoy  the  blessings  of  an  approving  con  science 
in  this  life,  or  the  hope  of  salvation  hereafter,  who  dares  to  rteglect 
them.  If  the  country  will  not  take  care  of  and  provide  for  them, 
we  are  unworthy  the  sacrifices  of  our  patriot  sires  of  the  revolution, 
and  the  shining  record  of  manly  courage  and  lofty  patriotism  of  tne 
Union  armies  of  this  day.  No  State  is  worthy  of  its  sovereignty., 
and  no  government  the  respect  of  its  people,  who  will  not  protect 
and  nurture  the  children  of  its  soldiers.  No  marble  shaft  marts 
the  spot  where  sleep  in  the  valley  of  the  Cumberland  or  Tennessee, 
or  on  the  banks  of  the  father  of  waters,  the  remains  of  the  brave 
Illinois  volunteer,  but  we  will  most  honor  the  dead  by  taking  care 
of  the  living ;  and  I  speak  in  the  name  of  the  loyal  millions  of  Illi- 
nois when  I  say  that  in  all  the  ranks  of  the  destitute  children  df 
our  fallen  and  disabled  soldiers,  not  one  shall  be  left  to  beg  or  grow 
up  in  ignorance  for  want  of  an  education.  Illinois  !  the  first  upon 
the  roll  of  honor  among  all  the  States,  shall  she  not  be  among  tba 
first  to  emblazon  her  proud  historic  record  by  setting  apart  a  liberal 
and  unfailing  endowment  for  the  support  and  education  of  the*  indi- 
gent  orphans  of  the  soldiers  of  the  Stated 


SOLDIERS     NATIONAL    CEMETERY  AT    GETTYSBURG. 

In  August,  1863,  shortly  after  the  battle  of  Gettysburg,  Penn- 
sylvania, it  was  proposed  by  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  that  a 
National  Cemetery  should  be  establised  at  Gettysburg,  for  the 
burial  of  all  the  Union  soldiers  killed  in  said  battle.  This  proposition 
was  made  to  the  Governors  of  all  those  States  whose  soldiers  had 
participated  in  the  battle,  to  wit :  the  States  of  Maine,  New  Hamp- 
shire, Yermont,  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Ohio,  In- 
diana, "Wisconsin,  Michigan,  Minnesota  and  Illinois  ;  and  in  it  was 
embodied  a  plan  for  the  establishment  of  the  cemetery,  which  pro- 
vides for  the  purchase  of  the  ground,  transfer  of  the  bodies,  and 
the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  the  cemetery,  and  also  for 
the  erection  of  a  suitable  monument,  and  the  expenses  for  the  es- 
tablishment and  maintenance  of  the  cemetery,  etc.,  to  be  appor- 
tioned among  the  States  having  soldiers  buried  there,  each  State 
to  be  assessed  according  to  its  population,  as  indicated  by  its  repre- 
sentation in  Congress.  Without  express  authority,  I  deemed  it 
my  duty  to  join  the  Executives  of  other  States  named,  in  the  ac- 
ceptance of  the  plan,  and  thus  securing  to  the  noble  sons  of  Illinois 
who  had  lost  their  lives  in  that  sanguinary  struggle  a  suitable  rest- 
ing place.  The  grounds  were  accordingly  purchased  and  laid  out 
by  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  and  in  November,  1863, 1  appointed 
Messrs.  Clark  E.  Carr,  of  Galesburg,  and  Wm.  L.  Church,  of  Chi- 
cago, commissioners,  to  represent  the  State  of  Illinois  at  the  inau- 
guration ceremonies,  which  took  place  on  the  19th  of  November, 
1863.  I  would  call  your  attention  to  all  the  correspondence  on 
this  subject  herewith  submitted,  and  the  interesting  report  of  the 
commissioners,  which  will  be  submitted  to  you. 

I  doubt  not  that  my  action  in  thus  accepting,  in  behalf  of  the 
people  of  the  State,  a  proposition  securing  to  their  brave  dead  a 
resting  place  and  a  monument  worthy  of  their  gallant  deeds,  will 
be  approved,  and  that  an  appropriation  will  be  made  by  the  General 
Assembly  of  the  proportionate  share  of  Illinois,  to  be  paid  to  the 
treasurer  of  the  National  Cemetery  Association,  in'  such  install- 
ments as  may  be  called  for  by  the  officers  of  the  association  ;  and 
also  that  an  appropriation  be  made  to  pay  the  expenses  of  the  com- 
missioners, as  set  forth  in  their  report. 


53 


OUK    COUNTRY. 

In  my  inaugural  and  messages  I  presented  at  length  my  views 
upon  the  causes  and  remedies  for  the  political  troubles  in  which 
our  country  is  involved.  I  shall  now  only  refer  to  the  present 
military  situation,  and  to  the  hopeful  prospects  from  the  emphatic 
endorsement  of  the  measures  of  the  administration  at  the  late  elec- 
tion. Of  the  former,  it  is  sufficient  to  say  that,  without  feeling  the 
first  symptoms  of  exhaustion  in  the  free  loyal  states,  our  arms  are 
everywhere  victorious,  upon  the  land  and  upon  the  sea.  We  have 
lost  no  important  "ground ;  we  have  reclaimed  the  larger  part  of 
the  territory  and  national  property  which  had  been  taken  from  us. 
Grant  has  driven  the  enemy,  step  by  step,  from  its  siege  of  "Wash- 
ington to  the  gates  of  Richmond ;  Sheridan  has  swept  clean  the 
valley  of  the  Shenandoah,  driving  Early  backward,  no  more  to  lay 
waste  our  borders ;  Farragut  remains  undisputed  conqueror  of  the 
seas ;  Sherman  dashes,  with  Napoleonic  tramp,  and  roams  unre- 
strained, from  city  to  city,  through  the  very  heart  of  the  confede- 
racy, unfurls  our  flag  defiantly  in  the  face  of  Charleston — soon  to 
wave  in  re-established  glory  upon  the  very  hights  from  which 
traitor  hands  struck  it.  And  the  very  latest,  perhaps  the  cleanest 
and  most  glorious  victory  of  the  war,  displaying  the  most  indomita 
ble  valor  and  brilliant  achievements  of  our  troops,  is  that  of  Gen 
eral  Thomas  and  his  brave  army.  The  bonds  of  the  confederacy 
are  worthless  in  their  own  and  every  foreign  market,  all  hope  ol 
foreign  intervention  or  northern  revolution,  has  failed  them,  and 
to-day  our  nation  stands  under  brighter  skies  than  have  smiled 
upon  us  since  the  inauguration  of  the  President  on  the  4th  day  of 
March,  1861,  and  before  us  the  cheering  prospect  of  speedy  and 
final  victory. 

The  verdict  of  the  American  people,  at  the  late  election,  solved 
finally  and  forever  all  the  questions  of  doubt  as  to  the  policy  which 
is  hereafter  to  be  pursued.  The  history  of  the  world  presents  no 
such  grand  results  achieved  in  the  interests  of  human  liberty  as 
that  presented  on  the  8th  day  of  November  last,  when  the  people, 
in  the  face  of  heavy  taxation  and  enormous  debt,  in  the  face  of  im- 
mense sacrifice  of  life  and  treasure,  when,  amidst  the  trials,  stress 
and  storms  of  civil  war,  and  the  most  intense  political  excitement, 
they  went  in  almost  breathless  quiet  to  the  polls,  and  recorded 


54 

their  solemn  verdict  upon  all  the  controverted  questions  which 
before  have  divided  and  agitated  the  country. 

The  result  of  that  election  has  defeated  all  the  hopes  and  expec- 
tations of  the  rebel  leaders.  Vice  President  Stephens,  by  far  the 
greatest  of  all  the  insurgent  leaders,  confidently  looked  to  divided 
counsels  in  the  north  as  almost  the  last  and  only  hope  of  success. 
But  the  verdict  of  the  American  people  has  declared,  in  language 
which  does  not  admit  of  misconstruction,  an  invincible  determina- 
tion to  prosecute  the  war  to  the  bitter  end  of  their  final  subjugation 
and  annihilation,  if  they  wickedly  persist  in  their  purposes  and 
efforts  to  overthrow  the  government. 

Every  patriot  contemplates  with  gratitude  to  God  the  safe  pas- 
sage of  the  nation  through  the  ordeal  of  the  Presidential  election. 
We  were  in  the  midst  of  a  terrible  war — a  fierce  party  contest  was 
raging  in  all'  the  loyal  states,  with  personal  hatreds  and  private 
ambition,  and  every  element  calculated  to  fan  into  frenzy  the  popu- 
lar passions — there  were  ominous  threatenings  of  civil  war  in  the 
free  states — the  enemies  of  our  government,  in  Europe  as  well  as 
in  the  disloyal  states,  expected  and  predicted  fatal  divisions,  and 
loyal  men  everywhere  held  their  breath,  in  anxious  fear  of  anarchy 
and  disruption.  But  universal  quiet  everywhere  prevailed,  and 
peace,  like  the  breath  of  spring,  settled  upon  all  the  territory  of  the 
loyal  states ;  and  be  it  recorded  as  one  of  the  sublirnest  spectacles 
in  history,  that  the  defeated  party  cheerfully  acquiesced  in  the 
will  of  the  majority.  It  is  a  pleasure  now  to  record  that,  whether 
the  minority  was  right  or  wrong  before  the  election,  they  are  all 
right  now,  and  all  bow  in  reverence  and  submission  to  the  deci- 
sions of  the  ballot  box — and  whether  they  do  believe  the  meas- 
ures of  the  administration  were  the  best  or  not,  they  yield  a  cheerful 
acquiescence,  and  evince  every  determination  to  stand  by  the 
authorities,  and  prosecute  the  war  with  the  utmost  vigor,  because 
such  is  the  verdict  of  the  people. 

I  am  far  from  disposed  to  consider  the  triumph  at  the  late  elec- 
tion in  the  light  of  a  mere  party  triumph.  It  was  a  national  vic- 
tory. The  enemies  of  the  government  need  not  lay  the  flattering 
unction  to  their  souls  that,  because  there  was  not  perfect  unanimity, 
there  was  any  great  division  upon  the  leading  question  of  the  war, 
whether  the  Union  shall  be  preserved.  It  would  be  absurd,  and 
maliciously  false,  as  well  as  detracting  from  the  strength  of  the 


55 

nation,  to  denominate  as  rebels  all  who  have  differed  with  the 
measures  and  policy  cf  the  government.  It  is  but  justice  to  say  of 
our  fellow  citizens  in  Illinois,  who  constitute  the  minority,  that 
however  they  differed  from  us  as  to  the  men  and  measures  of  the 
administration,  yet  by  far  the  larger  part  of  them  had  convictions 
as  strong  and  deep  as  our  own  in  favor  of  the  preservation  of  our 
glorious  Union,  and  that  to-day  the  sentiment  of  the  free  loyal 
states  approximates  closely  to  a  unit  in  favor  of  all  the  leading 
principles  of  our  republican  institutions.  This  important  fact  is 
evidence  of  our  national  strength,  and  a  warning  to  traitors  and 
tyrants  that  though  our  people  do  not  vote  alike,  yet  they  feel, 
think  and  will  act  alike  upon  the  main  question  of  preserving  un- 
broken our  nationality. 

It  teaches  to  foreign  nations  that  there  is  an  intense  and  undivi- 
ded sentiment  in  favor  of  tite  preservation  of  the  Union  at  every 
hazard  of  human  life  and  national  treasure,  and  that  while  the 
United  States  desires  and  prays  for  peace  with  all  the  world,  she 
is  not  so  divided  as  to  brook  any  interference  from  any  foreign 
government,  potentate  or  power,  in  the  adjustment  of  the  question 
whether  she  shall  require  and  enforce  obedience  to  her  constitution 
and  laws.  And  protesting  that  peace  is  our  desire  and  not  war,  I 
speak  in  behalf  of  the  two  millions  of  Illinois,  when  I  say  that  they 
stand  ready  to  repel  with  the  strong  arm  of  military  power,  inter- 
ference from  any  foreign  country,  or  any  of  its  dependencies ;  and 
that  we  will  meet  them  on  the  land  or  on  the  sea,  whenever  they 
seek  to  te£  the  issue.  "We  mind  our  own  business,  let  foreign  na- 
tions mind  theirs.  We  ask  no  favors,  nothing  but  the  neutrality 
which  every  nation  interested  to  maintain  its  national  authority 
must  have,  and  that  we  will  have  or  we  will  have  war.  Such  lan- 
guage is  not  diplomatic,  but  it  is  the  feeling  of  every  true  hearted 
American,  who  has  reluctantly  been  forced  to  believe  that  through 
jealousy  of  our  growing  power  and  our  free  and  liberal  institutions, 
the  two  great  nations  of  Europe  have  not  only  sympathized  with 
but  contributed  material  aid  to  the  rebels  in  their  attempt  to  over- 
throw our  government.  For  such  offences  the  United  States  has 
too  long  been  paid  with  diplomatic  apologies.  The  United  States 
could  well  overlook  the  unauthorized  acts  of  reckless  British  sailors 
and  bravadoes  ;  but  British  statesmen,  men  of  rank  and  power,  the 
large  portion  of  the  British  nobility  and  the  government  press  have 
from  the  beginning  of  the  war  exhibited  to  our  cause  bitter  hostility 


56 

and  rejoiced  in  the  reverses  to  our  arms.  They  have  given  friend- 
ly connivance  to  vessels  which  ran  our  blockades,  and  to  pirates 
who  preyed  upon  our  commerce ;  have  suffered  piratical  ships  to 
be  built  in  her  ports,  and  to  be  manned  with  sailors  from  her  navy, 
and  our  brave  boys  fighting  for  the  Union  have  been  shot  by  Eng- 
lish cannon  and  English  muskets  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  rebels 
by  British  gold.  Rebel  ambassadors  and  conspirators  have  been 
feted  and  lionized  at  British  courts,  while  our  ministers  have  been 
treated  with  the  cold  formalities  of  diplomatic  intercourse.  In  u 
neighboring  British  province  traitors  from  the  south  and  the  north, 
and  foreign  emissaries,  have  holden  their  counsel  of  treason  and 
conspiracy  against  our  government,  while  southern  traitors  have 
sought  the  protection  of  English  soil  from  which  to  send  their  raid- 
ers to  burn  our  vessels  on  the  lakes  and  rob  and  murder  our  citi- 
zens. 

Now  our  only  reliance  for  a  continuation  of  peace  with  England 
is  thorough  and  ample  preparation  for  war.  "We  cannot  calculate 
upon  her  justice  when  her  sympathies  and  prejudices  are  so  marked 
against  us.  Our  immunity  from  war  with  England  is  in  our  strength. 
Our  policy  and  our  safety  is  to  let  it  be  made  apparent  to  England 
and  all  foreign  nations  that  we  ask  no  favors,  and  that  we  can  make 
war  more  destructive  to  them  than  they  csn  to  us.  While  we  ap- 
peal to  their  justice,  we  will  let  them  understand  that  we  expect  it 
more  from  the  strength  of  our  naval  marine  and  the  calibre  of  our 
guns,  than  from  any  fair  foreign  appreciation  of  our  cause.  In 
this  connexion  I  recommend  the  General  Assembly  to  express  in 
strong  terms  their  approval  of  the  action  of  the  President,  that  af- 
ter the  expiration  of  the  six  months  conditionally  stipulated  in  the 
arrangement  with  Great  Britian,  the  United  States  will  proceed  to 
increase  her  naval  armament  upon  the  lakes.  The  State  of  Illinois, 
as  well  as  every  State  bordering  upon  the  lakes,  is  deeply  inter- 
ested in  this  question.  Our  cities  and  harbors  are  exposed  to  raids 
and  incursions  without  vessels  of  war  to  protect  them.  Indeed, 
the  power  to  control  the  northern  lakes  is  now  in  the  hands  of  the 
British  government,  because  by  her  canals  she  could  in  a  few 
weeks  place  a  fleet  of  gunboats  upon  them  by  which  she  could  an- 
nihilate our  commerce  and  place  all  of  our  lake  cities,  without  a 
single  exception,  at  the  mercy  of  the  invader.  And  here  also  is 
the  war  argument  in  favor  of  our  own  ship  canal,  by  which  we 
could  transfer  our  fleets  of  gunboats,  transports  and  munitions  of 


57 

war  from  our  seaboard  to  the  lakes,  if  required  by  the  emergency 
of  war  with  a  foreign  nation. 

But  again,  the  verdict  of  the  people  at  the  late  election  is  the 
death  of  the  traitorous  theory  of  secession.  It  reasserts  the  doctrine 
of  our  fathers,  as  maintained  in  the  late  Baltimore  platform,  that  the 
Union  is  not  a  mere  compact  or  league  from  which  any  State  may 
recede  at  its  mere  caprice  or  pleasure  ;  and  we  send  down  to  our 
children  our  solemn  verdict  that  the  national  government  is  the 
sovereign  power  of  the  land — that  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States  and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof  shall  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  There  is  no  political  heresy  so  dangerous  to  the 
existence  of  our  government  as  the  doctrine  of  the  right  of  secession 
which  southern  politicians  have  sugar  coated  with  the  plausible  sobri- 
quet of  State  Sovereignty.  The  theory  is  full  of  danger — of  inevita. 
ble  national  disintegration  an4  n'nal  overthrow.  "Were  I  to  presume 
to  leave  a  lesson  to  my  children  most  serviceable  to  my  country,  it 
would  be  to  guard  against  the  insidious  doctrine  of  State  sovereignty 
in  the  meaning  which  nearly  all  southern  politicians  and  many  north- 
ern politicians  have  given  to  it.  To  understand  the  immense  danger, 
look  at  the  action  of  Governor  Seymour,  who  during  the  war  has 
thrown  the  power  of  the  Empire  State  of  the  Union  against  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  government,  and  consequently  against 
a  vigorous  prosecution  of  the  war,  under  an  hypocritical  pretense 
that  his  action  was  dictated  by  a  controlling  desire  to  preserve  the 
rights  of  the  States  from  federal  usurpation. 

The  nKrtto  of  the  State  of  Illinois  is  "  State  Sovereignty  and 
National  Union,"  which,  properly  understood,  is,  in  my  estimation, 
the  best  and  most  beautiful  motto  which  adorns  the  armorial  bear- 
ings of  any  State  in  the  Union.  I  am  for  unlimited  state  sove- 
reignty in  the  true  sense :  in  the  sense  that  the  State  is  to  control 
and  direct  all  its  municipal  and  local  legislation  ;  and  I  would  be 
among  the  first  to  resist  all  attempts  upon  the  part  of  the  Federal 
Government  to  interpose  tyrannical  usurpation  of  power  in  con- 
trolling the  legislation  of  the  States.  The  States  are  sovereign,  in 
every  sense  in  which  it  is  desirable  they  should  have  sovereignty  • 
that  is,  the  people  know  and  understand  their  immediate  wants, 
social,  agricultural,  commercial,  mechanical,  educational,  munici- 
pal ;  and  the  interference  of  Congress,  except  in  aid  of  these,  with 
the  consent  of  the  people  of  the  States,  would  be  a  flagrant  abuse 
of  power,  which  every  patriot  son  of  Illinois  would  resist  with  all 


58 

his  energies,  and  all  his  life.  But  how  immensely  absurd  is  the 
idea  that  the  people  of  the  States  should  unite  together,  and  form 
a  written  constitution,  and  constitute  a  national  government,  with 
representation  from  the  people  from  every  State,  and  confer  upon 
that  government  all  the  powers  of  peace  and  war,  and  every  power, 
in  fact,  which  affected  the  safety  and  prosperity  of  all  the  States, 
and  all  the  people,  as  one  nationality,  and  constitute  a  Congress  to 
make  the  laws  necessary  for  the  government  of  the  whole — an 
executive,  chosen  from  all  the  people,  to  execute  the  laws,  and 
a  judiciary  composed  of  men,  residents  of  the  different  states,  and 
declare  the  constitution  and  laws  the  supreme  authority  in  the  land, 
to  decide  the  questions  at  variance  between  the  government  and 
the  States,  and  between  the  several  States  themselves,  and  yet 
admit  that  any  State  may,  at  its  mere  pleasure,  peaceably  withdraw 
from  the  Union.  Such  was  the  doctrine  of  the  old  confederacy. 
The  States  first  formed  a  confederacy  in  the  nature  of  a  mere 
league ;  but,  being  found  ineffectual,  a  constitution  was  formed  by 
the  people  of  the  States  for  a  more  perfect  union,  for  the  express 
purpose  of  doing  away  with  the  principle  of  unlimited  State  sove- 
reignty. 

I  hail  it  as  the  most  important  result  of  our  glorious  war  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  fathers  has  been  re-asserted,  and  that,  while  we 
are  opposed  to  a  monarchy  or  to  a  consolidated  government,  which 
would  ignore  the  existence  of  state  sovereignty,  yet  we  recognize 
as  essential  to  union  and  national  perpetuity,  the  centralization 
somewhere  of  a  power  which  shall  be  the  arbiter  in  the  case  of 
disagreement  between  the  States.  Otherwise,  indeed,  our  govern- 
ment is  a  rope  of  sand.  If  any  one  will  carefully  study  the  form  > 
of  our  government,  he  will  see  the  necessity  of  the  checks  and 
balances  which  our  fathers  threw  around  it ;  for  there  are  two 
powers  in  constant  and  increasing  conflict,  and  if  a  fair  equilibrium 
is  not  maintained,  the  government  is  lost.  In  the  solar  system, 
the  sun  holds  the  planets  in  their  orbits,  and,  but  for  its  power, 
each  planet  would  fly  off  darkling  through  the  realms  of  space ; 
but  if  its  power  were  uncontrolled,  and  above  all  the  laws  of  forces 
and  equilibrium,  it  would,  by  the  force  of  natural  gravity,  draw 
every  planet  headlong  into  tin  central  orb,  which  would  be  con- 
solidation, and  resemble  the  despotism  and  powers  of  Europe. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  the  sun  were  to  lose  its  supremacy  alto- 
gether, and  the  planets  should  become  the  supreme  forces,  they 


50 

would  fly  off  lawless  through  the  void,  producing  wild  anarchy  in 
the  solar  system,  which  nothing  but  the  Almighty  Power,  who  cre- 
ated them  and  all  things,  could  subdue.  Our  only  safety  is  in  the 
hope  that  these  forces,  in  our  State  and  national  governments,  will 
balance  each  other;  that,  in  strict  obedience  to  constitutional  law, 
the  States  will  perform  their  duties  to  their  own  citizens,  to  each 
other,  and  to  the  whole  nation ;  and  that  the  national  government 
will  commit  no  usurpation  of  state  privileges.  The  careful  obser- 
ver of  our  government  will  perceive  that  the  tendency  is  not  to 
consolidation,  but  to  anarchy  and  dissolution.  The  rapidity  in 
growth  and  population  of  the  States,  makes  them  feel  their  conse- 
quence and  strength  more,  and  their  dependence  less  sensibly  on 
the  Federal  Government ;  like  the  high-spirited  youth  who  feels 
less  dependent,  from  day  to  day,  as  he  approximates  the  age  of  his 
majority.  ^ 

Indeed,  we  may  say  that  our  government  is  fearfully  and  won- 
derfully made,  and  the  great  machine  of  state  must  move,  self- 
poised,  magnificently  onward  between  the  dead  calm  of  consolida- 
tion and  the  convulsions  of  anarchy  and  disunion. 

The  late  election  has  settled  all  disputed  questions.  It  is  settled 
that  traitors  may  be  arrested  and  hung ;  it  is  settled  that  the  first 
duty  of  every  citizen  is  to  his  country,  and  that  he  may  be  drafted 
into  the  military  service ;  it  is  settled  that  men,  irrespective  of 
color,  may  be  employed  in  the  military  service  of  the  country. 

But,  again,  this  election  has  settled  the  great  question  of  slavery. 
It  has  indorsed  the  proclamation  of  the  President,  and  all  the 
measures  of  his  administration  tending  to  the  emancipation  of  the 
slave.  Whatever  may  have  been  the  sentiment  of  the  American 
people  heretofore  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  they  have  fully  resolved  that  it  must  cease  to  exist  in  every 
State  and  Territory  of  the  Union. 

I  have  ever  believed  that  the  slavery  question  was  the  source  of 
all  our  national  troubles ;  that  it  was  at  war  with  the  genius  of  our 
institutions,  and  that  we  can  never  have  permanent  peace  and  a 
harmonious  Union  without  its  thorough  eradication  ;  and  while 
statesmen  of  the  highest  standing,  and  many  good  men  every- 
where, have  feared  lest  radical  measures  might  endanger  the  unity 
of  the  friends  of  the  government,  and  that  some  end  short  of  radi- 
cal and  universal  emancipation  was  the  best  policy  of  the  govern- 


ment,  and  necessary  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  yet  I  have 
ever  believed,  and  now  believe,  that  it  is  in  the  councils  of  a  higher 
power  than  man  that  this  rebellion  will  know  no  end  except  upon 
the  basis  of  unconditional  and  universal  emancipation.  In  fact,  I 
may  go  further  and  say  that  I  scarce  desire  to  see  this  war  termi- 
nated with  this  disturbing  element  left  to  divide  our  councils,  to 
embroil  citizen  against  citizen  and  State  against  State,  to  result  in 
another  bloody  war  and  perhaps  in  final  disunion.  I  do  not 
desire  to  see  the  war  terminated  until  it  shall  be  a  recognized 
fact — recognized  not  only  by  our  own  government,  but  by  the 
Confederate  States,  including  both  government  and  people,  and  be 
made  patent  to  all  the  civilized  nations  of  the  world,  that  not  under 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States — not  under  any  constitution 
or  law  of  any  seceded  State — not  under  any  decision  of  any  legal 
tribunal,  State  or  National — and  not  even  in  any  conventional, 
moral,  social  or  individual  sense,  shall  the  relation  of  slave  and 
master,  in  the  form  of  absolute  submission  on  the  one  hand  and 
uncontrolled  ownership  on  the  other  hand,  be  recognized  upon  any 
portion  of  North  American  soil.  Blindly  reeling  and  tottering 
beneath  the  blows  it  has  already  received,  it  is  our  duty  to  give 
this  accursed  wrong  and  cause  of  all  our  sufferings  a  final  blow, 
and  send  it  to  a  grave  from  which  it  will  have  no  resurrection. 
When  the  shout  of  victory  comes  to  us  from  Grant,  or  Sherman's 
armies,  we  rejoice,  because  we  consider  each  victory  brings  us 
nearer  peace  and  the  restored  authority  of  the  government.  We 
rejoice  when  we  hear  that  Atlanta,  Mobile  or  Savannah  is  ours, 
but  I  shall  consider  peace  nearer  when,  either  through  the  legisla- 
tion of  Congress  or  from  the  act  of  our  armies,  or  of  the  rebels 
themselves,  slavery  is  destroyed.  It  is  significant  to  me  of  victory 
when  I  see  the  recent  movement  of  the  south  towards  organizing 
the  negroes  into  regiments,  putting  arms  into  their  hands,  and 
giving  them  their  freedom.  It  is  a  strange  phenomenon  in  history : 
the  leaders  of  an  insurrection  calling  upon  the  cause  of  that  insur- 
rection to  save  it.  Driven  to  madness  and  despair,  they  themselves 
commence  putting  down  their  "divine  institution"  for  which  they 
commenced  the  war.  Providence  is  shaping  their  destiny  so  that 
with  their  own  hands  they  shall  bring  to  destruction  the  very  thing 
that  they  meant  to  maintain,  and  which  they  designed  to  make  the 
permanent  corner-stone  of  their  new  confederacy.  Of  what  use 


61 

will  a  new  government  be  to  the  rebels  when  their  slaves  are  free, 
and  when  they  can  have  no  use  for  it  ? 

I  am  for  freeing  the  negro  by  every  constitutional  means ;  and  I 
believe,  as  I  ever  did,  that  had  the  seceded  States  behaved  them- 
selves— had  they  been  true  and  loyal  to  the  Government — they 
had  from  all  the  people  of  all  the  loyal  States  an  unfailing  guar- 
antee of  non-intervention  in  their  domestic  institutions.  Indeed, 
very  few  if  any  prominent  statesmen  believed  that  Congress  had 
any  power  whatever  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery. 
But  what  government  may  lawfully  do,  in  time  of  peace,  against 
its  own  citizens  who  are  loyal  to  the  government,  and  what  it  may 
lawfully  do  towards  those  citizens  in  time  of  war,  when  they  them- 
selves have  thrown  off  their  allegiance  to  the  government,  and 
become  open  and  diabolical  enemies  of  that  government,  is  quite 
another  thing.  To  illustrate  :  the  humblest  American  citizen  has 
rights  which  the  whole  American  government  and  all  the  powers 
of  darkness  cannot  deprive  him  of  while  he  is  a  good,  loyal  citizen 
and  obeys  the  laws  of  his  country.  To  him,  personal  liberty  and 
protection  is  a  sacred  right,  which  the  lordliest  in  the  land  dare  not 
infringe  with  impunity  ;  but  if  he  violates  the  law — if  he  commits 
theft  or  murder — if  he  becomes  an  outlaw — then  he  may  be 
deprived  of  his  personal  liberty.  So,  although  it  was  in  the  bond 
that  slavery  should  not  be  interfered  with  in  the  States,  yet  when 
those  States  and  the  people  break  the  bond — trample  the  very 
constitution  and  laws,  which  were  the  shield  of  their  protection, 
under  their  feet — deny  their  allegiance  to  that  constitution,  take  up 
arms  to  overthrow  the  government,  and  become  the  public  enemies 
of  the  country — then  the  government  may  take  that  man's  life,  or 
his  property  of  any  and  every  kind,  if  necessary,  to  compel  his 
submission  and  save  the  government.  And,  therefore,  I  have  no 
doubt  of  the  power  of  Congress,  in  such  a  case,  to  pass  a  broad, 
manly  act  of  emancipation,  breaking  the  chains  of  every  slave  in 
every  seceded  State  ;  and  my  doctrine  is  the  immediate,  total  abo- 
lition of  slavery  in  every  seceded  State. 

Of  course,  Congress  would  have  no  power  to  abolish  slavery  in 
the  loyal  and  adhering  States,  without  their  consent,  and  hence  the 
necessity  of  an  amendment  to  the  constitution,  by  which  slavery 
shall  be  abolished  in  every  State,  loyal  as  well  as  disloyal,  under 
the  forms  and  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  Constitution — and 
thus  free  the  whole  land  forever  from  the  everlasting  curse  of 


62 

human  bondage.  It  will  be  one  of  the  earliest  duties,  I  trust,  ot 
your  honorable  bodies,  to  urge  upon  Congress  immediate  action 
upon  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  constitution  abolishing 
slavery  throughout  the  United  States.  During  the  last  session  of 
Congress  it  passed,  by  a  majority  of  two-thirds  in  the  Senate,  both 
the  Senators  from  Maryland,  both  the  Senators  from  West  Vir- 
ginia, and  both  the  Senators  from  Missouri,  and  a  large  majority 
of  the  Senators  representing  slave  States  voting  for  it.  In  the 
House  it  failed  for  want  of  a  two-thirds  vote,  and  lacked  only 
eleven  votes  of  passing,  so  that,  although  the  same  Congress  is  to 
sit  again*  this  winter,  yet  so  emphatic  has  been  the  verdict  of  the 
people  in  its  favor,  as  to  induce  the  belief  that  there  will  be  enough 
members,  who  opposed  it  before,  to  conform  to  the  national  will 
and  carry  it  through  the  present  Congress;  but  if  they  do  not,  then 
the  next  Congress,  already  elected  upon  that  issue,  will  carry  the 
measure  triumphantly  through.  Then  it  will  be  part  of  the  organic 
law  of  the  republic,  wiping  out  the  last  blot  upon  the  fair  charter 
of  our  freedom — universal  freedom  for  all — every  where  under  the 
folds  of  our  starry  banner. 

It  is  perhaps  difficult  to  tell  in  how  many  new  and  different 
phases  the  question  may  during  the  next  two'  years  assume — how 
many  plans  for  gradual  or  half-way  emancipation — how  many  com- 
promises may  be  devised  by  politicians,  but  I  confidently  trust  that 
the  voice  of  Illinois  shall  be  ever  living  and  potential,  through  her, 
honored  representatives  in  the  General  Assembly,  for  the  most 
direct  and  shortest  route  to  radical  and  universal  emancipation. 

Another  lesson  taught  by  the  late  election  was,  that  the  war 
shall  be  vigorously  prosecuted  until  every  armed  rebel  shall  lay 
down  his  arms  and  submit  to  the  rightful  authority  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  until  our  national  flag  shall  wave  in  triumph  over  all 
our  broad  territory  in  all  its  geographical  bounds,  one  and  un- 
broken, from  gulf  to  gulf,  and  from  ocean  to  ocean.  The  triumph 
of  the  war  policy  at  the  polls  is  the  triumph  of  the  war  itself.  It 
never  has  been  a  question  in  the  mind  of  any  sound  statesman  or 
general,  whether  we  had  the  power  to  conquer  the  rebels  into  obedi- 
ence to  the  government ;  the  only  question  was  whether  we  would 
do  it — and  we  have  now  decided  the  question  of  the  result  of  the 
war  by  the  emphatic  announcement  of  the  people  that  they  intend 
to  fight  the  war  through — yes  !  fight  it  through,  and  settle  all  ques- 


63 

tions  in  dispute  for  all  time  to  come.  No  one  can  fail  to  admire 
the  wisdom  and  humanity  of  the  President  in  his  late  message, 
wherein  he  says,  in  substance,  that  while  he  declines  to  hold  out 
terms  of  negotiation  to  the  insurgent  leaders,  yet  he  holds  out  the 
olive  branch  of  peace  to  the  masses  who  follow  their  leaders,  and 
tell  them  that  "they  can  at  any  moment  have  peace  by  laying  down 
their  arms  and  submitting  to  the  national  authority  under  the  con- 
stitution." He  says,  "the  door  has  been  and  is  still  open  to  all, 
but  the  time  may  come,  probably,  when  public  duty  shall  demand 
that  it  be  closed,  and  in  lieu,  more  vigorous  measures  than  hereto- 
fore shall  be  adopted." 

Now  is  a  time,  if  ever,  the  nation  can  afford  to  be  magnanimous, 
in  view  of  our  great  strength  and  the  unanimity  of  our  people,  as 
expressed  at  the  recent  election — in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  enemy 
is  everywhere  close  pressed  by  our  conquering  legions—  we  can 
now,  not  taking  counsel  froni*our  fears,  but  from  our  magnanimity 
and  with  the  power  of  conscious  strength,  knowing  that  our  final 
triumph  is  but  a  question  of  time,  we  can  invite  the  deluded  masses 
of  the  south  to  lay  down  their  arms  and  come  in  again  to  share  the 
protection  and  blessings  of  the  government. 

But  in  the  mean  time  every  effort  should  be  made  to  push  for- 
ward vigorously  the  car  of  war.  Not  for  one  moment  should 
the  executive  stay  his  strong  military  arm  in  the  suppression  of 
the  rebellion.  The  greatest  calamity  which  could  befall  this  coun- 
try now;  in  fao£  the  greatest  danger  to  be  apprehended  is  that,  from 
the  very  consciousness  of  our  strength  and  the  speedy  prospect  of 
success,  we  may  relax  our  efforts,  and  the  war  become  a  protracted, 
lazy,  heavy,  draggling  war.  Should  such  be  the  case,  there  is  no 
telling  what  may  be  the  final  issue — what  demoralization  may  sehe 
our  army — what  divisions  may  spring  up  among  the  people — at 
what  time  foreign  nations  may  consider  it  their  duty  to  intervene, 
and  finally  what  disgraceful  compromise  and  dishonorable  peace 
may  be  brought  about,  leaving  all  the  blood  and  treasure  of  four 
years'  terrible  war  to  have  been  expended  in  vain.  The  only  hope 
of  the  enemy  is  that  we  will  fail  to  follow  up  the  advantages  already 
gained.  If  ever,  now  is  the  time  to  press  forward  with  overwhelm- 
ing demonstration  of  our  national  power  and  forces  to  the  goal  of 
speedy  and  final  victory.  Onward  with  the  war.  The  people  should 
demand  it;  every  legislative  assembly  should  press  it  upon  Congress; 
Congress  should  press  it  upon  the  President,  and  the  President  upon 


64 

the  Generals  in  the  army ;  the  whole  nation  should  wake  up  to  the 
one  great  purpose,  and  resolve  that  there  shall  now  be  no  lagging 
in  the  war.  And  while  we  hold  out  the  words  of  kindness  and  the 
olive  branch  of  peace  to  the  south,  let  us  resolve  upon  quick,  sharp, 
decisive  war,  and  besides  paying  liberal  bounties  to  our  soldiers  at 
home,  let  us  adopt  the  ancient  mode  of  war,  hold  out  to  our  boys 
in  blue  the  sunny  fields  of  the  south,  capture  the  territory,  divide 
the  lands  among  the  soldiers,  to  be  held  by  them  and  their  heirs 
in  fee  simple  forever.  We  have  long  held  out  this  same  olive 
branch  by  the  proclamations  of  the  President.  The  only  answer 
has  been  insult  and  injury.  The  most  savage  cruelties  have  been 
heaped  upon  our  prisoners  in  the  hands  of  the  enemy,  and  from 
Jeff.  Davis  has  come  the  bold  and  defiant  language  that  he  will 
never  consent  to  any  peace — his  voice  is  still  for  war  until  the  Uni- 
ted States  shall  acknowledge  the  independence  of  the  Confederate 
States."  Now  I  am  here  to-day  to  say  in  behalf  of  the  loyal  mil- 
lions of  Illinois,  and  I  trust  this  General  Assembly  is  prepared  to 
say,  and  to  throw  in  the  face  of  Jeff.  Davis  and  of  his  minions,  and 
of  all  traitors  who  would  destroy  our  Union,  the  determined  re- 
sponse that  in  the  booming  thunders  of  Farragut's  cannon,  in  the 
terrible  onslaught  of  Sherman's  legions,  in  the  flaming  sabres  of 
Sheridan's  cavalry,  and  in  the  red  battle  glare  of  Grant's  artillery, 
our  voice  is  still  for  war — war  to  the  knife — all  the  dread  enginery 
of  war — persistent,  unrelenting,  stupendous,  exterminating  war,  jtilj. 
the  last  rebel  shall  lay  down  his  arms  and  our  flag  float  in  triumph 
over  the  land. 

Upon  the  subject  which  agitates  the  minds  of  many,  whether 
the  north  and  south,  after  such  deadly  strife,  can  ever  resume  friend- 
ly relations  and  live  in  harmonious  fellowship  in  one  Union  and 
under  the  same  government,  is  a  question  which  has  never  given 
me  any  doubt.  Slavery  has  been  the  only  ground  of  bitterness  and 
division.  All  other  questions  were  political  and  commercial, 
which  all  were  ready  to  submit  to  the  common  arbitrament  of  the 
ballot ;  but  the  question  of  slavery  was  social,  domestic  and  organ- 
ic, and  perhaps  like  all  the  questions  involving  the  rights  of  man 
and  the  principles  of  liberty,  which  have  engendered  bloody  wars 
in  all  ages  and  all  nations.  There  could  have  been  no  solution  to 
this  question,  except  the  war  which  has  grown  out  of  it.  But 
slavery  once  removed,  there  will  be  an  homogeneousness  of  senti- 
ment, having  the  effect  to  bind  together  the  north  and  the  south. 


65 

The  tides  of  emigration  are  already  thrown  imto  new  channels. 
Emigration  from  the  south  to  the  north  and  from  the  north  to  the 
south  now  crosses  each  other  at  all  our  commercial  points  on  our 
rivers  and  along  all  our  thoroughfares  of  trade. 

The  black  wall  of  slavery,  which,  like  a  frightful  specter,  drove 
the  emigrant  from  the  sunny  fields  and  rich  savannahs  of  the  south, 
is,  or  soon  will  be,  broken  down — the  process  of  intermixture,  in- 
termarriage, reciprocal  business  and  commercial  relations,  will 
assume  the  place  of  the  unsocial  isolations  which  have  heretofore 
divided  the  sections.  And  though  the  war  has  been  bitter  and 
bloody,  yet  the  history  of  most  nations  of  Europe  teaches  that  they 
have  survived  long  and  bloody  civil  wars,  and  yet  afterwards  lived 
in  peace  and  harmony  under  the  same  government.  Such  is  the 
history  of  France,  after  her  revolution.  The  civil  war  of  England, 
in  the  memorable  days  of  Cromwell,  was  marked  by  scenes  of  vio- 
lence, of  confiscation  of  property,  of  devastation  of  estates  and  deso- 
lation of  towns  and  cities,  as  intense  and  terrible  as  those  which 
have  marked  the  progress  of  our  civil  war.  Upon  the  re-establish- 
ment of  the  government,  the  people  became  united,  and  every 
memory  of  the  rancour  of  the  war  soon  disappeared.  And  so, 
after  the  vindication  of  our  national  authority,  each  section  award- 
ing to  the  other  the  credit  due  to  lofty  and  indomitable  prowesi, 
like  friends  who  have  fought  it  out  and  are  better  friends  ever 
after,  so  will  the  north  and  the  south  bury  the  memory  of  their 
wrongs.  Massachusetts  and  Illinois  will  again  reunite  with  Vir- 
ginia and  Georgia  over  the  grave  of  treason,  and,  together  with  the 
new-born  sisters  of  the  confederacy,  will  live  on  in  the  bonds  of  a 
new  brotherhood ;  and,  with  fresh  allegiance  to  the  constitution, 
and  an  unfailing  faith  in  the  proved  strength  of  our  institutions  and 
man's  capacity  for  self-government,  strengthened  and  reassured  by 
the  baptism  of  blood  through  which  the  nation  has  passed,  they 
will  move  on  as  one  people,  united  forever. 

Such  is  to  be  the  end  of  events  passing  before  us ;  and  I  trust 
that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  their  posterity,  while  they 
offer  up  praises  and  thanksgiving  to  Almighty  God  for  the  deliv- 
erance he  has  brought  to  our  people  out  of  this  red  sea  of  blood — • 
Jhey  will  bless  with  a  nation's  gratitude,  from  age  to  age,  the  mem- 
ories of  the  brave  men  who  have  periled  all  for  their  country  in 
i 

—6 


66 

its  dark  and  trying  hour.  And  when  our  own  Illinois,  upon  some 
national  holiday,  shall  meet  all  our  returning  soldiers,  as  they  shall 
pass  in  serried  ranks,  with  their  old  battle  scarred  banners  and 
shivered  cannons,  and  rusty  bayonets  and  sabres — with  rebel  flags 
and  rebel  trophies  of  every  kind — at  this  mighty  triumphal  pro- 
cesBion,  surpassing  the  proudest  festivals  of  ancient  Kerne  and 
Greece,  in  their  palmiest  days,  then  the  loud  plaudits  of  a  grateful 
people  will  go  up :  All  hail  to  the  veterans  who  have  given  our 
flag  to  the  God  of  storms,  the  battle  and  the  breeze,  and  consecrated 
our  country  afresh  to  union,  liberty  and  humanity. 

Gentlemen  of  the  General  Assembly:  In  taking  my  leave  of 
the  high  responsibilities  of  the  executive  of  this  great  State,.!  can 
congratulate  you  and  the  people  that  the  administration  of  its  affairs 
will  pass  into  the  hands  of  a  successor  who  is  fully  competent  to 
the  trust  committed  to  his  care — who  has  given  the  highest  evidence 
of  devotion  to  the  country,  by  both  distinguished  civil  and  military 
service — and  in  whose  great  ability,  sound  judgment  and  unswerv- 
ing integrity  I  have  the  most  entire  confidence. 

I  cannot  fail  here  to  refer  in  kindness  and  gratitude  to  Lieutenant 
Governor  Hoffman,  who  has  been  my  constant  adviser  and  coun- 
selor, and  who  has  acted  as  Governor  in  my  absence,  with  great 
ability  and  efficiency;  and  to  my  associate  State  officers.  Hon. 
Jesse  K.  Dubois,  Hon.  O.  M.  Hatch  and  Hon.  "William  Butle*, 
to  whom  I  am  deeply  indebted  for  wise  counsel  and  cordial  co- 
operation in  important  matters  of  my  administration.  Also,  to 
Quartermaster  General  Ex-Governor  John  Wood,  and  Commis- 
sary General  John  Williams,  for  most  indefatigable  and  efficient 
Eerrice;  and  also  to  the  aid-de-camps  in  my  office,  and  in  the 
office  of  the  Adjutant  General,  and  to  the  clerks  in  all  the  de- 
partments of  the  State  government,  for  their  faithful  and  useful 
labors. 

I  must  be  indulged  in  saying  that,  while,  doubtless,  many  omis- 
sions have  occurred,  and  many  errors  have  been  committed,  yet 
my  labors  have  been  severe  and  arduous,  and  that  perplexities  of 
a  most  difficult  and  unusual  character,  growing  out  of  the  unsettled 
condition  of  the  country,  have  met  me  on  every  hand — among  which 
was  lack  of  co-operatien  in  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  government, 
and  the  want  of  adequate  appropriations  required  in  the  new  emer- 


67 

gencies  to  be  met  by  the  Executive.  However,  I  shall  never 
regret  the  anxieties,  cares  and  responsibilities  which  have  devolved 
upon  me,  if,  in  some  degree,  I  have  discharged  the  high  trust  com- 
mitted to  me  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  people  of  the  State. 

KICHAKD  YATES. 

January  2, 1865. 


MESSAGE 


OV   HIS   EXCELLENCY, 


EICHAED    YATES, 


GOVERNOR  OF  ILLINOIS, 


IN  RESPONSE  TO  RESOLUTIONS  OF  THE  HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTA- 
TIVES, OF  JANUARY  6,  1865,  IN  RELATION  TO  THE 


CLAIM  OF  ILLINOIS  AGAINST  THE  UNITED  STATE 


FOR  TWO  PER  CENT.  OF  THE  NET  PROCEEDS  ARISING 
FROM  THE  SALE  OF  PUBLIC  LANDS. 


SPRINGFIELD: 

BAKER  &  PHILLIPS,  PRINTERS. 

1865. 


frt'T  A  Y     OH  A 

ILL,       I        .^.jk.       JL  V..1     JJL    JWk. 


(4  ,'i'Vroff 


MESSAGE. 


EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT, 
Springfield,  Illinois,  January  10,  1865. 

To  the  Honorable  the  House  of  Representatives  : 

In  response  to  certain  resolutions  adopted  by  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, on  the  6th  instant,  having  reference,  as  I  understand  them,  to 
the  claim  of  Illinois  against  the  United  States  for  two  per  cent,  of  the 
net  proceeds  arising  from  the  sale  of  public  lancte,  which  was  reserved 
in  the  compact  between  the  United  States  and  Illinois,  to  be  expended, 
under  the  direction  of  Congress,  in  constructing  roads  leading  to  the 
State,  I  have  the  honor  to  communicate  the  facts  in  relation  to  the  claim 
made  by  the  State  and  my  action  in  connection  therewith,  together 
with  such  suggestions  as,  in  my  opinion,  will  fully  enable  the  State  to 
arrive  at  a  just  conclusion  on  the  subject. 

In  1818,  Congress  passed  an  act  to  enable  the  people  of  Illinois  Ter- 
ritory to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the  admis- 
sion of  such  State  into  the  Union.  The  sixth  section  of  that  act  offered 
four  certain  propositions  to  the  convention  of  said  territory,  when 
formed,  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejection,  and  which,  if  accepted  by 
the  conwntion,  should,  as  the  law  expressly  declares,  "be  obligatory  on 
t/ie  United  States"  These  propositions  were  accepted,  and  the  condi- 
tions upon  which  they  were  made  strictly  observed,  by  which  the  State 
lost  a  large  amount  of  revenue  in  refraining  to  tax  the  public  lands  for 
five  years  from  and  after  the  day  of  sale,  and  the  patented  lands  for 
three  years  after  the  date  of  the  patents,  respectively,  where  they  were 
continued  to  be  held  by  the  patentees  or  their  heirs,  as  an  equivalent 
for  this,  and  not  as  a  gratuity  or  donation.  The  third  proposition 
declares  "  that  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying 
within  such  State,  and  which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress,  from  and  after 
the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  nineteen, 
after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  reserved  for 
the  purposes  following,  viz :  two-fifths  to  be  disbursed  under  the  direc- 
tion of  Congress,  in  making  roads  leading  to  the  State,  the  residue  to 
be  appropriated  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State  for  the  encouragement 
of  learning,  of  which  one-sixth  part  shall  be  exclusively  bestowed  on  a 
college  or  university." 


The  three  per  cent.,  thus  set  apart  to  the  State,  for  educational  purpo- 
ses, has  been,  from  time  to  time,  paid  over  by  the  United  States,  but 
not  a  dollar  of  the  two  per  cent.,  set  apart  for  road  purposes,  has  ever 
been  paid ;  nor  can  it  be  shown  that  it  has  been  expended  in  a  manner 
required  by  the  trust.  The  money,  as  it  accumulated  in  the  treasury, 
belonged  to  the  State,  and  Congress  was  only  empowered,  as  trustee,  to 
disburse  it  in  conformity  to  the  terms  imposed  upon  them.  It  has  not 
been  pretended  that  the  money  was  used  in  "making  roads  leading  to 
the  State."  The  Interior  Department  has,  however,  claimed  that  the 
State  should  be  charged  with  the  sums  expended  within  her  limits  on 
the  National  or  Cumberland  road,  while  the  Treasury  Department, 
where  such  matters  are  properly  cognizable,  has  never  made  a  charge 
of  such  character  against  the  fund.  While  my  limits  forbid  a  discus- 
sion of  the  ground  assumed  by  the  Interior  Secretary,  I  feel  it  my  duty 
to  say,  I  believe  it  wholly  untenable,  and  it  certainly  operates  very 
unjustly  towards  the  State. 

A  provision,  setting  apart  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  arising 
from  the  sales  of  public  lands,  will  be  found  in  the  enabling  act  of  each 
new  State  admitted  into  the  Union,  in  which  such  lands  were  situated, 
or  in  the  act  providing  for  such  admission,  barring  California;  and, 
with  three  exceptions,  each  State  to  which  the  amount  was  granted 
received  it  in  money  from  the  National  treasury,  and  disposed  of  it  by 
their  own  legislative  enactments.  Congress  did  not  attempt  to  execute 
the  trust,  but  transferred  it  to  the  Legislatures  of  the  states  respectively. 
The  three  exceptions,  referred  to,  are  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois.  Their 
road  fund  of  two  per  cent.,  together  with  that  of  Missouri,  which  was 
subsequently  paid  over  to  that  State,  was  reserved  by  certain  acts  of 
Congress,  to  reimburse  the  treasury  for  appropriations  made  out  of  it 
to  construct  the  National  road,  but  not  in  a  manner  warranted  by  the 
trust.  Ohio  and  Indiana,  however,  by  solemn  acts  of  their  legislatures 
accepted  the  portions  of  the  road  lying  within  their  respective  limits, 
upon  which  some  three  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars  were  expended, 
and  have  derived  a  revenue  from  them.  Illinois  never  adopted  such 
legislation ;  never  recognized  the  work  done  within  her  boundaries  as 
of  any  value,  and  never,  in  any  way,  made  an  appropriation  of  it,  so 
that  she,  of  all  the  States,  has  derived  no  advantage  from  the  road  fund 
pet  apart  for  her  benefit,  either  in  the  way  of  expenditures  or  receipts 
of  money. 

If  Congress  had  kept  its  faith  and  constructed  the  road,  as  it  provided 
should  be  done  through  Illinois,  instead  ot  abandoning  the  enterprise, 
after  making  a  few  wasteful  expenditures  between  her  eastern  limit  and 
Yandalia,  the  equity  of  tho  case  would  be  vastly  different;  though, 
even  then,  it  could  not  be  properly  and  justly  insisted  that  the  fund  set 
apart  for  the  special  benefit  of  the  State,  and  for  which  she  had  rendered 
a  full  equivalent,  could  be  legally  absorbed  by  Congress  in  a  great 
National  work,  undertaken  and  prosecuted  for  the  common  benefit  of 
the  whole  United  States,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  she  had 
never  accepted  of  such  legislation. 

From  whatever  point  the  subject  may  be  contemplated,  it  seems  to 
my  mind  clear  that  the  State  is  entitled  to  receive  from  the  United 
States  the  amount  of  her  claim.  That  there  is  ample  legislative  provis- 


ion  requiring  the  payment  I  have  as  little  doubt.  The  second  section 
of  an  act  of  Congress,  approved  March  3,  1859,  entitled  "An  act  to 
settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Mis- 
sissippi and  other  States,"  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  Commissioner  of 
the  General  Land  Office  to  settle  the  account  of  Illinois,  as  one  of  the 
"other  States" — allow  and  pay  it.  However,  it  is  not  necessary  that  I 
should  enter  into  an  argument  upon  this  point  with  the  Legislature. 
There  can  be  but  one  mind  among  us  on  the  subject. 

As  early  as  1857,  Hon.  Isaac  IN.  Morris,  then  a  member  of  Congress 
from  Illinois,  commenced  the  prosecution  of  this  claim  before  the  Land 
Department,  at  Washington,  and  obtained  the  promise  of  that  depart- 
ment that  it  should  be  adjusted  and  paid  ;  whereupon,  he  sent  a  copy  of 
his  correspondence  with  the  commissioners  to  his  excellency  Governor 
Bissell,  and  suggested  the  propriety  of  the  appointment  of  an  agent  on 
behalf  of  the  State  to  attend  to  the  settlement  of  the  account.  Governor 
Bissell  requested  him  to  do  it.  Soon  after  my  term  of  office,  as  execu- 
tive of  the  State,  commenced,  Mr.  Morris  spoke  to  me  upon  the  subject, 
and  subsequently  made  a  presentation  of  the  laws  and  facts  upon  which 
he  claimed  the  money  was  due  the  State.  Upon  an  investigation  of  the 
matter  I  became  satisfied  his  views  were  correct,  and,  inasmuch  as  he 
had,  after  great  patience  arift  labor,  entirely  familiarized  himself  with 
the  whole  subject,  I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  appoint  him  to  prosecute  the 
claim  for  the  'State.  He  has  submitted  to  me  three  different  reports, 
pertaining  to  the  business  with  which  he  was  entrusted — two  in  printed 
form  and  one  in  manuscript — which  are  herewith  transmitted,  and  to 
which  I  respectfully  call  your  careful  attention.  These  reports  will  be 
found  very  full,  and  exhibit  clearly  and  conclusively  the  right  of  the 
State  to  payment  of  the  claim. 

The  difficulties  surrounding  the  prosecution  of  claims  against  the 
General  Government,  at  this  period,  have  environed  Colonel  Morris  on 
all  sides,  yet  he  has  brought  to  the  discharge  of  his  intricate  and  diffi- 
cult mission  the  great  skill  and  persistent  industry  requisite  to  success ; 
and  I  feel,  that  for  his  distinguished  fidelity  and  consciencious  labors, 
the  State  is  greatly  indebted. 

I  recommend  that  the  Legislature  make  a  firm  expression  of  their 
opinion  in  behalf  of  the  claim  of  the  State,  and  that  a  reasonable  appro- 
priation be  made  to  defray  the  expenses  of  its  prosecutor. 

Respectfully, 

KICIIARD  YATES,  Governor. 


REPORT  OF  THE  HON.  I.  K  MORRIS, 


ON  THE 


TWO  PEK  CENT.  FUND, 

MADE  TO  HIS  EXCELLENCY  KICHAKD  YATES. 


or 


REPORT. 


To  His  EXCELLENCY,  RICHARD  YATES, 

Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois: 

SIR  —  1  beg  leave  most  respectfully  to  submit  to  you  a  partial  report 
in  the  matter  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  net  proceeds  of 
the  sales  of  public  lands  made  within  the  State  since  January  1,  1819. 
In  making  this  report  I  cannot,  in  view  of  the  public  interest  or  justice 
to  myself,  embrace  in  it  all  that  it  might  be  important  and  valuable  to 
communicate.  Hence  I  shall  do  but  little  more  now  fhan  compile  the 
record  as  far  as  it  is  made  up,  and  add  such  observations  as  will  be 
necessary  to  explain  its  different  parts.  On  some  future  occasion  I  may 
transcend  these  limits. 

Soon  after  my  election  to  the  35th  Congress,  I  entered  upon  an  inves- 
tigation of  the  claim  of  Illinois  against  the  United  States,  for  the  two 
per  cent,  on  the  public  lands  sold  in  the  State,  and  set  apart  in  her 
enabling  act  "to  be  disbursed  under  the  direction  of  Congress,  in 
making  roads  leading  to  the  State."  The  result  of  that  investigation 
was  to  satisfy  me  that  the  amount  was  due  the  State,  and  that  existing 
legislation  required  its  payment.  Consequently  in  a  day  or  two  after 
my  arrival  in  Washington  in  December,  1857,  I  opened  a  correspond- 
ence upon  the  subject  with  the  Hon.  Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  then  Com- 
missioner of  the  General  Land  Office,  which  is  hereto  subjoined : 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  December  12,  1857. 
HON.  THOMAS  A.  HENDEICKS, 

Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office; 

SIR  —  Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  communicate  to  me,  at  your 
earliest  convenience,  the  gross  amount  of  two-fifths  of  the  five  per  cent, 
of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  sold  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  to 
which  said  State  is  entitled  for  road  purposes,  under  and  by  virtue  of 
the  third  proposition  contained  in  the  sixth  section  of  "An  act  to  enable 
the  people  of  the  Illinois  Territory  to  form  a  Constitution  and  State 
Government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  original  States,  approved  April  18th,  1818." 
Yours  very  respectfully, 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 


10 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  December  17,  1857. 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS, 

House  of  Representatives: 

SIR  —  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  commu- 
nication of  the  12th  instant,  in  reference  to  the  three  per  cent,  accruing 
to  the  State  of  Illinois  under  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress, 
approved  April  18th,  1818,  and  in  reply  have  to  state  that  the  amount 
for  the  year  1856,  was  adjusted  on  the  27th  July  last,  and  forwarded  to 
the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  for  his  decision  thereon.  The 
balance  found  to  be  due  the  State  on  the  31st  of  December,  1856,  under 
the  provisions  of  the  said  act  amounted  to  $13,791  69. 
I  am  sir,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  A.  HENDRICKS,  Commissioner. 

WASHINGTON,  H.  E.,  December  19, 1857. 
HON.  THOS.  A.  HENDRICKS, 

Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office: 

SIR  —  I  have  the  honor  to  be  in  receipt  of  your  reply  of  the  17th  to 
my  letter  of  the  12th  instant,  and  allow  me  to  say  that  you  either 
greatly  misapprehended  my  communication,  or  I  made  a  great  mistake 
in  writing  it.  I  think  if  you  will  refer  to  it  again,  you  will  find  the 
error  is  with  you.  I  did  not  inquire  for  the  amount  of  the  three  per 
cent,  accruing  to  the  State  of  Illinois  under  the  provisions  of  the  act 
for  her  admission  into  the  Union,  but  desired  to  know  the  gross  amount 
of  the  two  per  cent,  to  which  said  State  is  entitled  for  road  purposes  by 
virtue  of  said  act. 

Your  early  answer  to  that  interrogatory  will  greatly  oblige  me. 
I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  sir, 

Yours  very  respectfully, 

I.  K  MOERIS. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  December  23,  1857. 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS, 

House  of  Representatives; 

SIR  —  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  commu- 
nication of  the  19th  instant  in  reference  to  the  two  per  cent,  to  which 
the  State  of  Illinois  is  entitled  under  the  act  of  1818. 

In  reply,  I  have  to  state  that  the  amount  will  be  adjusted  at  as  early 
a  day  as  practicable,  and  the  information  you  desire  will  be  transmitted 
to  you. 

1  am  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  A.  HENDRICKS,  Commissioner,  j 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  January  7,  1858. 
HON.  THOS.  A.  HENDRICKS, 

Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office: 

SIR  —  On  the  12th  and  19th  of  last  month,  I  had  the  honor  to  address 
you,  inquiring  for  the  gross  amount  of  the  two  per  cent,  arising  from 


11 

the  sales  of  public  lands  within  the  State  of  Illinois,  to  which  said  State 
is  entitled  by  virtue  of  the  act  for  her  admission  into  the  Union.  Not 
having  received  an  answer  communicating  the  desired  information, 
owing,  as  I  am  told,  to  the  indisposition  of  the  clerk  whose  duty  it  is 
to  furnish  it,  I  have  to  ask  of  you  whether  you  will  be  prepared  on  the 
proper  application  being  made  to  pay  over  to  said  State  the  aggregate 
amount  of  said  two  per  cent,  when  the  same  shall  be  ascertained,  as 
required  by  "An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United 
States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi,  and  other  states,"  approved  March 
3,  1857,  and  the  said  act  of  admission.  Your  early  answer  will  greatly 
oblige  rne. 

I  remain,  sir,  yours,  very  respectfully, 

I.  K.  MOKEIS. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  January  8,  1858. 
HON.  I.  N  MORRIS, 

House  of  Representatives: 

SIR  —  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
yesterday,  in  which  you  inquire  whether  the  government  will  be  pre- 
pared to  pay  over  to  the  State  of  Illinois  the  two  per  cent.  fund,  to 
which  she  will  be  entitled  in  virtue  of  the  act  of  April  18, 1818,  for  her 
admission  into  the  Union,  when  the  same  shall  have  been  ascertained, 
as  required  by  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1857,  and  the  said  act  of 
admission. 

In  reply,  I  have  to  state  that  the  amount  you  refer  to  shall  be  adjusted 
as  soon  as  the  great  pressure  of  business  will  admit  of  it,  and  I  am  not 
aware  of  any  reason  for  withholding  payment  of  the  amount  to  which 
the  State  may  be  entitled  when  the  same  shall  have  been  ascertained. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  A.  HENDKIOKS,  Commissioner. 

WASHINGTON,  January  9,  1858. 
HON.  THOS,  A.  HENDRICKS, 

Commissioner  of  ike  General  Land  Office: 

SIR  —  I  had  the  honor  lo  receive,  this  morning,  your  letter  of  yester* 
day  in  reply  to  mine  of  a  previous  date.  In  alluding  to  my  inquiry 
whether  you  will  be  ready,  when  the  aggregate  amount  is  ascertained, 
to  pay  to  the  State  of  Illinois  the  two  per  cent,  to  which  she  is  entitled 
on  the  sales  of  public  lands  made  •within  her  limits,  a»d  to  which  I  ha,ve, 
in  previous  communications,  more  particularly  called  your  attention, 
you  say,  "  I  am  not  aware  of  any  reason  for  withholding  payment  of 
the  amount  to  which  the  State  may  be  entitled  when  the  same  shall 
have  been  ascertained." 

As  I  design  to  transmit  to  the  Governor  of  my  State  our  correspond- 
ence for  his  consideration,  I  shall  be  happy  to  have  all  doubts  as  to  your 
determination  removed.  The  language  which  I  have  above  quoted 
from  your  letter,  while  I  have  no  question  in  my  mind  of  its  purport, 
may  be  regarded  by  some  as  ambiguous,  and  with  a  view  of  removing 
any  misapprehension  as  to  its  meaning,  I  will  be  exceedingly  obliged  if 


12 

you  will  state  definitely  whether  the  amount  will  be  paid  upon  the  sanio 
being  fully  adjusted. 

I  remain,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully, 

1.  N.  MORRIS. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  January  13,  1858. 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS, 

House  of  Representatives: 

SIR  —  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  commu- 
nication of  the  9th  instant,  in  which  you  request  that  I  will  state  more 
definitely  than  I  did  in  my  letter  of  the  8th  instant,  whether  the  amount 
of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  to  which  the  State  of  Illinois  may  be  found 
to  be  entitled,  will  be  paid  on  the  account  being  fully  adjusted.  In 
reply,  I  have  to  state  that  I  cannot  give  any  more  positive  assurance 
than  is  contained  in  the  communication  referred  to  by  you ;  and  for  the 
reason  that  it  is  only  the  province  of  this  office  to  audit  the  account  and 
report  the  balance  which  may  be  found  to  be  due  to  the  State,  to  the 
First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  who  is  charged  by  law  with  the 
revision  of  accounts  as  the  controlling  officer,  and  who  will  have  the 
sole  direction  in  regard  to  the  payment. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  A.  HEKDRICKS,  Commissioner. 

Upon  the  receipt  of  the  letter  of  the  Land  Commissioner  to  me  of 
the  13th,  I  transmitted  copies  of  the  correspondence  to  Governor  Bis- 
sell,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  letter  from  me  to  him,  and  his 
reply : 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  January  16,  1858. 
His  EXCELLENCY,  WM.  II.  BISSELL, 

Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois: 

SIR  —  I  transmit  herewith  copies  of  communications  between  myself 
and  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  which  will  explain 
themselves. 

You  will  observe  that  the  correspondence  closes  for  the  present,  with 
the  Commissioner's  letter  to  me  of  the  13th  instant.  After  its  receipt, 
X  called  at  the  Land  Office,  and  urged,  personally,  that  the  account  of 
the  State  against  the  general  government  for  the  two  per  cent,  fund 
should  be  adjusted  as  soon  as  possible,  and  was  assured  no  time  should 
be  lost  in  stating  it.  I  therefore  concluded  that  no  benefit  could  result 
to  the  State  by  a  further  correspondence,  and  hence  terminated  it. 

It  will  be  perhaps  six  weeks  before  the  account  will  be  made  up.  I 
shall  keep  an  eye  to  the  matter,  and  about  the  time,  or  just  before  its 
completion,  will  apprise  you  of  it,  so  you  can  at  once  cause  the  proper 
demand  to  be  made  on  the  treasury  for  the  money.  In  the  meantime, 
I  hope  to  receive  such  suggestions  and  instructions  from  you  as  you 
may  think  proper  to  give. 

Col.  Miller,  State  Treasurer,  was  here  a  few  days  ago,  and  I  commu- 
nicated my  action  in  the  premises  to  him,  and  was  glad  to  find  it  met 
his  approval,  and  trust  it  may  yours.  I  wish  you  to  talk  with  him  on 
the  suljiect.  I  remain  yours  truly, 

I.  K  MORRIS. 


13 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILLINOIS,  January  22,  1858. 

DEAR  SIR  —  I  am  very  much  obliged  for  a  copy  of  the  correspond- 
ence lately  had  between  yourself  and  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office. 

You  have  acted  well,  indeed,  in  bringing  this  matter  to  our  attention, 
and  your  perseverance  has  already  brought  an  apparently  reluctant 
officer  to  the  proper  point.  I  have  no  suggestions  to  make,  and  only 
request  that  you  will  exercise  your  own  judgment  in  regard  to  the 
proper  time  for  renewing  your  efforts,  and  that  you  will  keep  me 
apprised  of  the  progress  of  the  matter. 

Yours  very  truly, 

WM.  H.  BISSELL. 
HON.  ISAAC  N.  MORRIS. 

After  admitting  the  legality  of  the  claim  of  the  State  and  agreeing 
to  have  the  account  made  up  for  presentation  to  the  treasury,  Mr.  Hen- 
dricke  declined  further  action  in  the  matter,  and  never  did  explain  to 
me  the  reason  why.  I  supposed  at  the  time,  that  inasmuch  as  he  was 
a  member  of  Mr.  Buchanan's  administration,  he  refused  to  comply  with, 
his  assurance  to  me  that  tK$  account  should  be  stated,  for  the  reason 
that  the  Democratic  members  of  Congress  from  Illinois  had  fallen  out 
with  that  administration,  the  consequence  of  which  was  that  as  little 
was  granted  to  them  as  possible.  While  the  foregoing  consideration 
doubtless  had  its  full  weight  in  preventing  an  act  of  justice  to  the  State, 
I  subsequently  learned  upon  high  authority  that  !Mr.  Buchanan  had 
issued  private  instructions  to  the  different  departments  not  to  pay  any 
claim  or  demand  on  the  government  which  could  be  postponed  or 
defeated,  with  the  view  of  lessening  the  expenditures  of  his  administra- 
tion. 

The  foregoing  statements  will  explain  why  the  matter  was  not  closed 
up  in  Mr.  Buchanan's  time. 

The  laws  upon  which  I  based  the  claim  of  the  State  in  my  corres- 
pondence with  Mr.  Ilendricks,  and  upon  which  I  still  rely  are  as  follows : 

CHAPTER  C  XXXIX. 

An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the 

State  of  Alabama. 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled.  That  the  Commissioner  of 
the  General  Land  Office  be,  and  he  is  hereby  required,  to  state  an 
account  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said 
State,  heretofore  unsettled,  under  the  sixth  section*  of  the  act  of  March 

*  The  following  is  the  third  condition  of  the  sixth  section  of  "  An  act  to  enable  the  people 
of  the  Alabama  territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission 
of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,  approved  March 
2,  1819,  and  is  the  only  portion  of  the  6th  section  of  the  act  relating  to  the  five  per  cent, 
on  the  public  lands." 

"That  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within  the  said  territory,  »nd 
which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress,  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  September,  in  the  year  one 
thousand  eight  hundred  and  nineteen,  after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  san:e, 


14: 

second,  eighteen  hundred  and  nineteen  for  the  admission  of  Alabama 
into  the  union;  and  that  he  be  required  to  include  in  said  account  the 
several  reservations  under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw, 
Chocktaw,  and  Creek  Indians  within  the  limits  of  Alabama,  and  allow 
and  pay  to  the  said  State  five  per  centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other 
sales. 

Approved  March  2,  1855. 

CHAPTER  CIY. 

An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the 
State  of  Mississippi*  and  other  states. 

J3e  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office  be,  and  he  is  hereby  required  to  state  an  account 
between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi,  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  State, 
heretofore  unsettled  on  account  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State,  and 
upon  the  same  principles  of  allowance  and  settlement  as  prescribed  in 
the  "Act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the 
State  of  Alabama,"  approved  the  second  of  March,  eighteen  hundred 
and  fifty-five;  and  that  he  be  required  to  include  in  said  account  the 
several  reservations  under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw  and 
Chocktaw  Indians  within  the  limits  of  Mississippi,  and  allow  and  pay 
to  the  said  State  five  per  centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales,  esti- 
mating the  lands  at  the  value  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per 
acre. 

§  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  said  commissioner  shall 
also  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the  other 
statesf  upon  the  same  principles,  and  shall  allow  and  pay  to  each  State 

shall  be  reserved  for  making  public  roads,  canals,  nnd  improving  the  navigation  of  rivers,  of 
which  three-fifths  shall  be  applied  to  those  objects  within  the  said  State  under  the  direction 
of  the  Legislature  thereof,  and  two-fiit'.is  to  the  making  of  a  road  or  roads  leading  to  the 
said  State,  under  the  direction  of  Congress." 

*  The  5th  section  of  an  net  to  enable  the  people  of  the  western  part  of  the  Mississippi 
Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  etc.,  approved  March  1,  1817,  is  as 
follows: 

"  That  five  per  cent.,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within  said  territory,  and 
which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  December  next,  after  deduct- 
ing all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  reserved  for  making  public  roads  and  canals, 
of  which  three-fifths  shall  be  applied  to  those  objects  within  the  said  State,  under  the  direc- 
tion of  the  Legislature  thereof,  and  two-fifths  to  the  making  of  a  road  or  roads  leading  to  the 
said  State,  under  direction  of  Congress." 

\  The  act  admitting  Illinois  into  the  Union,  entitled  "An  act  to  enable  the  people  of  the 
Illinois  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  and  for  the  admission  of  such 
State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  original  states,"  approved  April  18,  1818, 
says  in  section  6,  condition  third  : 

"  That  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  Iving  within  such  State,  and  which 
shall  be  sold  by  Congress,  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hun^ 
dred  and  nineteen,  after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  reserved  for  the 
purposes  following,  viz:  two-fifths  to  be  disbursed  under  the  direction  of  Congress,  in 
making  roads  leading  to  the  State,  the  residue  to  be  appropriated  by  the  Legislature  of  the 
State,  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  of  which  one-sixth  part  shall  be  excluf  ;vely 
bestowed  on  a  college  or  university." 


15 

such  amount  as  shall  thus  be  found  due,  estimating  all  lands  and  per- 
manent reservations  at  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre. 
Approved  March  3,  1S5T. 

After  Mr.  Buchanan's  administration  had  refused  justice  to  Illinois, 
I  introduced  a  bill  into  the  House  of  Representatives  to  compel  the 
payment  of  the  amount  due  the  State,  not  that  I  believed  such  legisla- 
tion necessary,  except  to  remove  the  obstacle  created  by  the  refusal  of 
reluctant  officers  to  do  their  duty.  The  bill  passed  the  House  in  a 
modified  form  at  the  last  session  of  the  36th  Congress,  and  was  sent  to 
the  Senate,  where,  on  motion  of  Senator  Fitch,  it  was  referred  to  the 
committee  on  the  judiciary,  who  never  reported  it  back.  I  urged,  time 
and  again,  upon  Senators  Douglas  and  Trumbull,  to  get  the  bill  before 
the  Senate  arid  pass  it,  but  it  was  never  done ;  for  what  reason  it  is  not 
necessary  to  inquire. 

Thus  the  matter  stood  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  inauguration.  At 
that  period  I  met  your  Excellency  in  Washington  City,  and  as  I  was 
going  out  of  Congress,  and  not  expecting  to  be  able  to  give  any  further 
attention  to  the  subject,  I  cowamunicated  the  facts  to  you,  and  suggested 
that  you  should  appoint  some  one  to  look  after  the  interest  of  the  State, 
as  she  was  certainly  entitled  to  the  money  I  claimed  for  her.  You 
requested  me  to  send  you  a  copy  of  my  correspondence  with  Mr.  Hen- 
dricks,  (the  original  of  which  is  of  course  on  record  in  the  General 
Land  Office,  as  it  is  of  an  official  character,)  and  I  promised  to  do  so. 
Soon  after  my  return  home,  however,  I  was  taken  sick,  and  for  eighteen 
months  was  not  able  to  attend  to  business.  In  the  meantime  the  war 
broke  out,  and  I  thought  that  perhaps  you  would  conclude  that  a 
demand  for  the  money  had  as  well  be  postponed  until  the  excitement 
consequent  upon  that  event  had  somewhat  abated.  I  concluded  also 
that  I  could  make  you  understand  the  facts  more  satisfactorily  at  a  per- 
sonal interview  than  by  writing.  It  could  not  be  expected  you  would 
remember  them  sufficiently  distinct  to  act  upon  them  from  our  hasty 
interview  at  Washington.  I  took  the  papers  with  me  to  Springiield 
two  or  three  times  during  the  latter  part  of  the  past  year,  but  was  never 
fortunate  enough  to  find  you  at  home.  You  were  always  absent  on 
official  business. 

At  the  commencement  of  the  last  session  of  the  Legislature  we  met, 
and  conferred  upon  the  subject.  I»  submitted  to  you  my  correspondence 
with  Mr.  Hendricks  and  called  your  attention  to  the  laws  upon  which  I 
based  the  claim  of  the  State.  I  am  gratified  to  be  able  to  add  that  you 
manifested  a  prompt,  earnest,  sincere,  and  highly  commendable  zeal  for 
the  interest  of  the  State,  and  at  once  determined  to  prosecute  her 
demand.  Without  solicitation  on  my  part,  you  were  generous  enough 
to  tender  me  an  appointment  as  agent  on  behalf  of  the  State,  under 
wrhich  I  repaired  to  Washington,  arriving  there  on  Saturday  evening, 
the  7th  of  February,  taking  with  me  a  letter  from  you  to  the  President, 
explaining  the  object  of  my  mission,  and  inviting  his  co-operation.  On 
Monday  evening  following,  I  called  upon  his  Excellency,  delivered  your 
communication,  and  conferred  with  him  in  regard  to  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  State's  claim.  All  that  he  appeared  willing  to  do  at 
the  time  was,  and  I  think  perhaps  that  was  as  far  as  he  ought  to  have 


16 

gone,  to  indorse  upon  the  back  of  your  letter  the  following  words, 
which  I  laid  before  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  : 
\J 

"I  shall  be  obliged  if  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office 
>     will  give  Mr.  Morris  a  full  he.aring  on  the  business  indicated  within, 
and  do  what  may  be  directed  by  the  law  in  the  case.     Please  give  Mr. 
Morris  an  early  hearing."  A.  LINCOLN. 

February  9,  1S63. 

On  the  same  day  I  called  upon  the  President,  I  addressed  the  follow- 
ing communication  to  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  : 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  February  9,  1863. 
HON.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS, 

Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office: 

SIR  —  I  am  charged  by  his  Excellency,  Richard  Yates,  Governor  of 
the  State  of  Illinois,  with  the  duty  of  prosecuting  the  claim  of  that 
State  against  the  general  government  for  the  two  per  cent,  fund  due  her 
under  existing  laws  of  Congress  for  road  purposes.  I  therefore  have 
to  respectfully  inquire  if  you  will  direct  the  account  to  be  made  up 
under  "An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and 
the  State  of  Mississippi  and  other  states,"  approved  March  3,  1857,  and 
the  enabling  act  preparatory  to  the  admission  of  Illinois  into  the  Union. 
Your  early  answer  will  greatly  oblige  me. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  yours  very  respectfully, 

I.  K  MORRIS. 

Besides  the  foregoing  letter  I  furnished  the  commissioner  with  a  copy 
of  the  laws  upon  which  I  based  the  State's  claim,  and  my  interpretation 
of  them.  On  the  next  morning  I  was  informed  by  one  of  his  clerks, 
who  seemed  to  have  charge  of  the  business,  that  the  commissioner  and 
himself  gave  the  same  construction  to  the  laws  that  I  did,  but  that  Mr. 
Joseph  Wilson,  chief  clerk,  whose  opposition  I  had  anticipated,  differed 
with  them.  Believing  the  commissioner's  views  to  be  as  I  had  been  in- 
formed they  were,  I  felt  no  great  concern  about  the  result,  and  was 
therefore,  surprised  to  receive  from  him  the  subjoined  letter  : 


GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  February  13tfA,  1863. 

SIR  —  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
the  9th  inst,  in  which  you  inform  me  that  you  are  charged  by  His  Ex- 
cellency, Richard  Yates,  Governor  of  Illinois,  with  the  duty  of  prosecu- 
ting the  claim  of  that  State  against  the  general  government  for  the  two 
per  cent,  fund  due  her  under  existing  laws  of  Congress,  for  road  pur- 
poses, &c. 

In  reply,  I  have  to  inform  you,  that  I  have  carefully  examined  the 
several  acts  of  Congress  to  which  you  refer  in  the  memorandum  which 
accompanied  your  letter  above  referred  to,  and  all  other  acts  of  Con- 
gress relating  to  that  subject  so  far  as  Illinois  is  concerned,  and  I  do  not 
find  that  Congress  has  relinquished  its  control  over  two-fifths  of  the 
fund  set  apart  for  certain  purposes  by  the  third  clause  of  the^sixth  sec- 


IT 

tion  of  the  act  of  April  18th,  1818,  vol.  3,  page  430,  and  now  claimed  by 
Illinois. 

The  acts  to  which  you  refer  relate  to  moneys  received  by  the  govern- 
ment for  lands  which  had  been  reserved  for  certain  Indian  tribes. 

The  acts  for  the  admission  of  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi, 
and  other  acts  of  Congress  in  relation  to  this  subject,  are  almost  identi- 
cal with  the  acts  relating  to  Illinois,  and  it  was  necessary  for  those  two 
States  to  have  special  legislation  by  Congress  before  they  could  control 
the  two  per  cent,  grant  for  roads,  (see  act  of  Congress  df  September  4th, 
1841,  sections  16  and  17,  pages  457,  458,  vol.  5.) 

For  the  reasons  here  stated,  this  office  is  not,  in  my  opinion,  author- 
ized to  adjust  to  the  credit  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  two  per  cent,  fund 
referred  to,  without  further  legislation  by  Congress  on  the  subject. 
Very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

J.M.EDMUNDS, 

Commissioner. 
Hon.  I.  N.  MOBKIS,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Your  Excellency  will  observe  by  reference  to  the  letter  of  the  com- 
missioner that  all  he  says  about  the  laws  to  which  1  directed  his  atten- 
tion, is  that  "the  acts  to  which  you  refer  relate  to  moneys  received  by 
the  government  for  lands,  which  had  been  reserved  for  certain  Indian 
tribes" — a  very  summary  way,  indeed,  of  disposing  of  so  important  a 
matter.  My  understanding  is,  that  the  government  "received"  no 
money  for  the  lands  referred  to  by  the  commissioner  reserved  for  certain 
Indian  tribes,  but  notwithstanding  this  paid  to  the  States  of  Alabama 
and  Mississippi  the  full  five  per  cent,  on  those  lands.  It  appears,  there- 
fore, that  the  commissioner  mistook  the  fact  as  well  as  the  law. 

What,  as  he  seems  to  suppose,  two  sections  incorporf  ted  into  the  pre- 
emption act  of  1841,  relating  to  the  five  per  cent,  fund  due  Alabama  and 
Mississippi,  can  have  to  do  with  the  construction  of  the  acts  of  1855,  and 
1857;  making  no  reference  to  the  special  legislation  referred  to,  is  more 
than  I  can  discern.  The  commissioner  seems  to  forget  that  the  laws  of 
1855,  and  1857,  were  passed  long  subsequent  to  the  special  legislation  of 
1841,  and  that  the  act  of  1857,  is  a  general  act,  intended  for  the  benefit 
of  all  the  States,  and  requires  the  five  per  cent,  to  be  paid  to  each  State. 
Is  each  State  to  be  deprived  of  its  rights  under  that  act  because  some 
sixteen  years  before,  Congress  passed  a  special  law  for  Alabama  and 
Mississippi  ?  The  commissioner  certainly  cannot  doubt  but  that  Missis- 
sippi, if  she  had  not  previously  received  her  five  per  cent,  could  receive 
all  or  any  part  of  it  under  the  act  of  1857,  and  if  Mississippi,  why  not 
"each  of  the  other  States  ?"  The  law  so  provides,  and  covers  the  origi- 
nal sum  and  all  arrears  due  Mississippi  and  other  States. 

After  the  claim  of  the  State  had  been  decided  adversely  by  the  com- 
missioner, I  presented  all  the  laws  bearing  upon  the  subject  to  the  Presi- 
dent, and  at  his  instance  read  them  over  three  or  four  times  that  their 
import  might  be  fully  and  accurately  comprehended.  Fortunately, 
Judge  Norton,  a  clear  headed  and  able  lawyer  of  Joliet,  who  is  member 
elect  to  the  38th  Congress,  was  present  by  accident.  After  a  careful 

—3 


18 

consideration  of  the  question,  the  President  and  Judge  Norton  gave  it 
as  their  concurrent  opinion  that  Illinois  was  legally  entitled  to  the  full 
five  per  cent,  arising  from  the  sales  of  public  lands  made  within  her  lim- 
its since  January  1st,  1819,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  act  of  1857,  for 
the  Fe'tlement  of  the  accounts  of  Mississippi  and  other  States,  and  the 
provisions  of  the  enabling  act  fur  our  own  State,  thus  fully  and  entirely 
sustaining  the  legal  view  I  had  always  taken  of  the  claim.  The  Presi- 
dent at  the  interview  referred  to,  was  exceedingly  kind  and  courteous, 
and  very  ready  and  frank  in  expressing  his  opinion,  and  I  am  gratified 
to  be  able  to  add  that  lie  has  expressed  that  same  opinion  'to  various 
other  persons,  and  among  them  to  yourself.  He  said  to  you  a  short 
time  ago  when  you  were  in  Washington,  and  when  you  requested  he 
should  listen  to  the  reading  of  ray  communication  to  the  Interior  Secre- 
tary, under  date  of  March  10th,  1803,  that  he  would  have  no  objection, 
if  his  time  would  permit;  that  he  had,  however,  gone  over  the  premises 
with  me  once  —  that  the  conclusion  had  been  reached  that  the  State  was 
entitled  to  the  money,  and  it  was  not  worth  while  to  go  over  the  premises 
again.  I  had  two  or  three  other  interviews  with  him,  to  which  it  is  not 
now  necesrary  to  refer  in  detail.  What  followed  the  one  above  indica- 
ted, the  following  letters  will  sufficiently  show.  I  need  not  tell  you 
how  laborious  is  the  task  to  accomplish  any  business  in  a  department  at 
Washington. 

In  pressing  with  zeal  and  ardor  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  a 
iormal  decision  of  the  appeal  to  him  from  the  Land  Commissioner,  I  did 
no  more  than  I  believed  my  duty  to  the  State  required.  You  will  ob- 
serve the  somewhat  singular  fact  that  I  was  unable  to  get  written  re- 
plies to  my  communications  except  from  the  Commissioner  ot  the 
General  Land  Office.  I  was  therefore  compelled  to  make  my  calls  and 
those  of  my  friends  sufficiently  numerous  upon  public  functionaries  to 
make  up  a  record  myself,  and  I  believe  it  will  not  be  found  the  less  in- 
complete or  objectionable  on  that  account.  But  to  commence  it: 


WASHINGTON  CITY,  D.  C.,  I'elruary  18^A,  1863. 
HON.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  : 

SIR  —  I  respectfully  appeal  from  your  decision  in  the  matter  of  the 
application  of  the  State  ot  Illinois  claiming  from  the  United  States  the 
two  per  cent,  on  the  net  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  sold  in  said  State 
since  1819,  and  request  that  with  the  least  possible  delay  you  transmit 
the  papers  in  the  case  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  for  review. 
Respectfully,  I.  K  MORRIS, 

Agent  for  said  State  of  Illinois. 

Alter  the  appeal  was  perfected  and  the  case  argued  before  the  Interior 
Secretary,  I  transmitted  to  that  officer  the  following  letter,  showing 
briefly  as  I  had  shown  more  in  extenso,  verbally,  that  the  suhjcct  of  legis- 
lation was  the  five  per  cent.,  arid  its  application  tke  public  lands  sold  in 
the  States,  including  Indian  reservations,  &c.;  that  it  was  the  design  of 
Congress  to  place  all  the  new  States  in  which  there  were  public  lands 
on  an  equal  footing  in  regard  to  the  five  per  cent,  with  Mississippi,  Al- 
abama and  other  States  which  had  received  it,  and  that  the  law  of  1857 


19 

does  so  plare  them.  All  the  time  between  the  19th  of  February  and  the 
27th  of  March  when  sickness  compelled  me  to  leave  for  home,  I  spent  in 
earnest  endeavors  to  get  the  Interior  Secretary  to  decide  the  appeal : 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  February  20£A,  1863. 
HON.  J.  P.  USHER  : 

SIR — It  has  occurred  to  me  this  morning  that  I  would  very  briefly 
state,  in  writing,  some  of  my  views  of  the  laws  to  which  I  referred  last 
evening,  in  presenting  the  claim  of  Illinois  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund 
due  her  under  various  acts  of  Congress.  I  will,  of  course,  only  mention 
the  points. 

The  6th  section  of  the  enabling  act  of  Alabama  sets  apart  five  per 
centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  for  certain  purposes,  three 
parts  of  which  was  left  at  the  disposal  of  the  legislature,  and  two  parts 
to  be  expended  under  the  direction  of  Congress. 

"An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  arid  the 
State  of  Alabama,"  approved  March  2cl,  1855,  requires  the  Commissioner 
of  the  General  Land  Office  to  state  an  account  "between  the  United 
States  and  the  State  of  Alabama,"  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  "what 
sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  State  heretofore  unsettled."  un- 
der the  said  sixth  section  of  the  enabling  act,  and  he  is  also  required  to 
'•'•include  in  said  account  the  several  reservations  under  the  various  trea- 
ties with  the  Chickasaw,  Chocktaw,  and  Creek  Indians,  and  allow  and 
pay  to  the  said  State  Jive  per  centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales." 

The  iirst  thing  required  of  the  commissioner  is,  that  he  shall  state  an 
account  between  the  United  States  and  Alabama,  under  the  sixth  section 
of  her  enabling  act,  setting  apart  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
Bales  of  public  lands,  which  means  all  public  lands  sold  in  the  State, 
and  iinder  which  account  the  State  could  obtain  the  amount,  if  no  other 
act  relating  thereto  had  ever  passed.  The  Indian  reservations  are  only 
cumulative,  and  the  five  per  cent,  is  also  required  to  be  paid  on  those  lands. 

The  act  "to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  State-  and  the 
State  of  Mississippi  and  other  States"  approved  March  3d,  1857,  re- 
quires the  settlement  to' be  made  with  Mississippi  "on  the  same  princi- 
ples of  allowance  and  settlement  as  prescribed  in  the  Alabama  act,  and 
directs  the  payment  of  the  five  per  cent,  on  the  public  lands"  in  said 
State,  adding  thereto  the  Indian  reservations  as  in  the  case  of  Alabama. 

The  second  section  of  the  act  relating  to  Mississippi,  requires  the  com- 
missioner to  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  "and  each  of 
the  other  States  upon  the  same  principles,"  that  is,  as  is  required  by  the 
act  in  regard  to  Alabama,  "and  shall  allow  and  pay  over  to  each  State 
such  amount  as  shall'  thus  be  found  due."  This  section  also  provides 
.that  "ALL  lands  and  permanent  reservations,"  shall  be  valued  at  one 
dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre.  The  title  of  the  act  itself,  clearly 
shows  it  was  designed  to  include  all  the  States  in  which  public  lands 
had  been  or  would  be  sold,  and  was  intended  to  be,  as  it  is,  a  general 
public  act.  Its  language  verities  this  conclusion. 

The  laws  to  which  'I  have  referred  were  passed  by  Congress  long  sub- 
sequent to  the  acts  relating  to  the  National  Road,  and  hence,  if  the 
States  were  ever  deprived  by  previous  legiglation  of  any  part  of  the  two 


20 

per  cent,  which  I  do  not  admit,  it  was  re-invested  in  them  by  the  laws 
upon  which  I  based  the  claim  of  Illinois,  together  with  the  enabling  act 
relating  thereto. 
I  have  the  honor,  sir,  to  subscribe  myself, 

Your  obliged  friend, 

I  N  MORRIS 

March  23d,  I  called  at  the  Interior  Department  to  learn  the  Secreta- 
ry's conclusion,  but  he  postponed  the  matter,  saying  among  other  things, 
that  if  he  did  decide  the  case  and  the  money  was  paid,  the  Democratic 
members  of  Congress  from  Illinois  would  probably  abuse  the  adminis- 
tration for  it.  I  assured  him  to  the  contrary,  and  to  put  his  apprehen- 
sions on  that  score  at  rest,  and  to  show  what  their  opinion  was  of  the 
legal  and  equitable  character  of  the  State's  claim,  I  procured  the  signa- 
tures of  all  the  members  of  the  last  Congress,  and  Judge  Norton,  Gen- 
eral Farnsworth  and  Col.  Morrison's,  members  elect  to  the  38th  Con- 
gress, to  the  letter  given  below,  the  original  of  which  I  filed  in  the  Inte- 
rior Secretary's  office. 

ilT  !>/(:  iM'rw-iw"  Jijijooou  RG  »l»te  ot  e»onK;  hn«J    (irt«>rt'jf>  d.il 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  February  23^,  1863. 
HON.  J".  P.  USHER,  Secretary  of  the  Interior  •; 

SIE — In  the  matter  of  the  appeal  before  you,  in  which  the  State  of 
Illinois  claims  two  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  pub- 
lic lands  sold  in  that  State  since  1819,  we  have  to  say  that  we  regard 
the  State  as  legally  and  equitably  entitled  to  it  under  existing  laws,  and 
trust  you  will  not  hesitate  to  direct  the  account  to  be  made  up,  with  a 
view  to  its  payment  by  the  government. 

Although  the  sum  may  be  large,  that  of  course  cannot  constitute  a 
valid  objection  to  the  claim  or  furnish  a  reason  for  withholding  the 
amount  justly  due,  nor  do  we  mention  it  under  the  supposition  that  any 
such  consideration  will  at  all  effect  the  decision  of  the  appeal. 

Certainly  no  sound  reason  can  be  given  why  Illinois  should  not  be 
placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  Louisiana,  Mississippi,  Alabama,  Ar- 
kansas, Missouri,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Kansas,  Iowa  and  Minnesota, 
in  respect  to  the  five  per  cent,  set  apart  in  their  enabling  acts  for  the 
objects  specified  therein.  The  laws  requiring  the  liquidation  of  the 
claim,  Congress  alone  is  responsible  for,  and  no  just  censure  can  attach 
to  the  administration  for  executing  them ;  on  the  contrary,  its  clear  and 
undoubted  duty  is  to  give  effect  to  their  provisions.  Blame  might  pro- 
perly attach  if  it  failed  to  do  so. 

Again  appealing  to  you  to  act  in  the  premises,  we  acknowledge  our- 
selves, Yours  very  respectfully, 

J.  C.  ROBINSON,  A.  L.  KNAPP, 

W.  A.  RICHARDSON,  L.  TRUMBULL, 

ISAAC  N.  ARNOLD,  P.  B.  FOUKE, 

WM.  J.  ALLEN,  E.  B.  WASHBURNE, 

W.  KELLOGG,  O.  LOYEJOY,     .. 

JESSE  O.  NORTON,  J.  F.  FARNSWORTH, 

WM.R.MOBRISON. 


21 

Still  the  foregoing  brought  no  decision  of  the  appeal,  and  led  to  the 
production  of  the  following  letters  and  divers  personal  applications, 
which  were  alike  unavailing  without  an}7  justifiable  cause  for  the  delay, 
as  I  am  pursuaded  your  Excellency  will  admit. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  February  27,  1863. 
HON.  JOHN  P.  USHER, 

Secretary  of  the  Interior: 

SIR — I  acknowledge  the  kind  and  courteous  manner  with  which  you 
listened  to  my  presentation  of  the  claim  of  Illinois  to  the  two  per  cent, 
fund  arising  from  the  sales  of  public  lands  within  her  limits.  Since 
that  time,  now  some  ten  days,  I  have  called  twice  at  your  office  to  learn 
your  conclusion.  On  the  lirst  occasion  you  spoke  of  the  amount  being 
large,  and  expressed  apprehension  that  the  payment  of  it  would  create 
excitement,  and  asked  that  I  would  not  urge  a  decision  then.  Being 
satisfied  that  the  determination,  when  officially  expressed,  would  be  iu 
favor  of  my  state,  and  not  wishing  to  be  too  importunate,  I  concluded 
that  a  few  days1  delay  would  only  be  a  matter  of  personal  inconvenience 
to  myself,  and  hence  readily  yielded  to  your  desire. 

On  the  last  occasion  you  still  asked  for  further  time,  and  expressed 
the  fear  that  Mr.  Chase,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  might  not  be  satis- 
fied if  such  a  sum  as  my  state  is  entitled  to  was  directed  to  be  paid,  and 
advised  me  to  return  home,  leaving  the  question  undisposed  of.  I  an- 
swered I  could  not  see  what  Mr.  Chase  had  to  do  with  the  matter ;  that 
he  was  not  charged  with  the  execution  of  the  law,  his  duty  being  merely 
a  compliance  with  the  demand  on  him  for  the  money,  and  that  I  could 
not  think  of  leaving  here  until  the  subject  was  finally  acted  on.  You 
will,  I  am  pursuaded,  on  a  moment's  reflection,  be  convinced  I  was 
right  in  this.  To  go  to  Illinois  and  report  I  left  the  claim  pending  on 
an  appeal  before  you,  would  prove  I  was  an  unfaithful  agent,  and  sub- 
ject me,  as  it  ought,  to  public  disrespect.  Under  no  circumstances 
could  I  think  of  doing  so  or  abandoning  the  trust  reposed  in  me. 

To  obey  one  law  and  fulfill  one  obligation  is  just  as  sacred  a  duty  on 
the  part  of  the  government,  as  to  obey  another  law  and  fulfill  another 
obligation,  for  both  are  equally  imperative,  and  leave  an  administration 
without  any  right  or  power  of  discrimination. 

The  mere  question  of  the  embarrassment  of  the  treasury,  cannot  and 
ought  not,  and  I  am  convinced  will  not  be  plead  as  an  excuse  for  the 
non-compliance  with  a  plain  statute.  I  do  not  desire  nor  does  my  state, 
to  injure  the  national  credit  or  embarrass  the  government  finances,  but 
when  will  there  be  a  more  propitious  moment  than  the  present  for  the 
payment  of  the  amount  due?  Already  the  state  has  been  deprived  of 
it  for  years,  and,  of  course,  has  lost  the  interest  upon  it.  Since  1857  I 
have  been  prosecuting  the  demand,  and  have  orally  explained  to  you 
why  it  has  not  heretofore  been  paid.  Hence  it  is  no  new  or  sudden 
claim  brought  up  at  the  present  time  from  sinister  motives.  I  trust 
therefore,  you  will  direct  the  account  to  be  made  up  as  the  law  certainly 
requires  of  you. 

As  our  communications  have  heretofore  been  of  a  verbal  character,  I 
think  it  best  that  hereafter  they  shall  be  in  writing,  for  in  that  way 


22 

they  will  not  only  be  more  certain,  but  more  satisfactory.  This  is  es- 
pecially important  to  me  and  the  governor  of  my  state,  to  whom  I  will 
of  course  make  a  full  and  accurate  report,  embracing  the  entire  corres- 
pondence and  papers  of  my  actions  in  the  premises. 

Awaiting  your  reply,  and  believing  it  will  not  long  be  delayed,  and 
feeling  the  utmost  confidence  that  duplicate  legislation  will  not  be  de- 
manded to  compel  the  general  government  to  do  justice  to  a  sovereign 
and  loyal  state, 

1  have  the  honor,  dear  sir,  to  subscribe  myself  your  friend  and  obe- 
dient servant, 

I.  K  MORRIS. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  March,  2,  1863. 
HON.  JOHN  P.  USHER, 

/Secretary  of  the  Interior: 

SIK — My  interview  with  you  on  Saturday  left  a  deep  and  unpleasant 
impression  on  my  mind.  For  the  first  time,  you  suggested  that  the 
case  relating  to  the  business  of  my  state  was  not  perhaps  properly  be- 
fore you  on  an  appeal  from  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  inasmuch  as  all  the  papers  pertaining  thereto  had  not  been  trans- 
mitted as  you  alleged.  On  subsequent  examination,  I  found  you  were 
mistaken  in  this,  for  I  traced  them  to  your  own  table. 

You  also  suggested,  for  the  first  time,  that  the  case  might  have  to  go 
to  a  clerk  for  his  examination  and  revision,  adding,  "perhaps  he  will  be 
able  to  find  something  against  it." 

On  a  previous  occasion  you  advised  me  to  obtain  a  mandamus,  which 
if  I  am  correctly  informed,  cannot  be  sued  out  against  a  government 
officer  in  this  city;  still  if  it  could  be,  what  reason  can  be  assigned 
why  Illinois  should  be  driven  to  the  necessity  of  having  the  writ  issued 
to  force  a  decision  she  is  otherwise  justly  entitled  to. 

These  facts,  transpiring  at  the  time  and  under  the  circumstances  they 
did,  would  seem  to  convey  the  belief  that  while  the  la»v  is  in  favor  of 
my  state,  she  is  to  be  deprived  of  its  benefit  by  dilatory  pleas.  Jf  such 
should  be  the  result,  and  the  clerk,  who  is  not  a  lawyer,  or  charged  with 
any  responsibility,  is  to  review  the  application  or  claim  after  it  has  been 
argued  and  submitted  to  you  for  decision,  I  must  be  frank  enough  with 
you  to  say  such  a  procedure  would  be  totally  unwarranted.  Illinois 
asks  only  that  she  shall  be  treated  with  respect  and  awarded  her  just 
due.  She  is  no  eleemosynary  beggar  at  the  national  treasury,  yet  in 
her  name  and  on  her  behalf,  I  solemnly  and  earnestly  protest  against  a 
construction  and  policy,  if  they  should  be  finally  adopted,  which  I  am 
yet  unwilling  to  believe  will  be  the  case,  relying  as  I  do  upon  your 
great  legal  ability  and  high  sense  of  justice,  that  would  discriminate  to 
her  wrong  and  injury. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

I.  K  MORRIS. 


23 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C,  March  10,  1863, 
HON.  JOHN  P.  USHEE, 

Secretary  of  the  Interior: 

SIR — When  I  arrived  in  this  city,  more  than  a  ?nonth  ago,  I  did  not 
anticipate  the  delay  to  which  I  should  be  subjected,  and  the -exertions  I 
would  be  compelled  to  make,  to  obtain  for  the  State  of  Illinois  the  two 
per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands 
made  within  the  limits  of  the  state  since  January  1st,  1819.  The  right 
of  the  state  rests  upon  a  few  statutes  that  are  so  plain  and  emphatic  in 
their  provisions,  and  that  have  been  so  uniformly  construed  to  have 
no  ambiguous  meaning  by  legal  minds,  that  I  confidently  expected  a 
ready  assent  to  the  proposition  I  presented.  And  especially  was  this 
the  case  when  the  president,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the  laws 
bearing  upon  the  subject,  expressed  the  opinion  to  you,  to  Judge  Norton, 
member  of  congress  elect  from  Illinois,  and  to  myself,  that  the  state  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  I  claim  the  laws  confer  upon  her.  I  arn  disap- 
pointed, therefore,  that  these  weeks  of  waiting,  and  repeated  requests 
for  official  action,  have  brought  me  no  formal  decision  of  the  appeal 
now  pending  before  you.  And  I  am  the  more  surprised  at  this  pro- 
crastination in  vrew  of  the  fact  that  yon  have  never  given  to  me  or  to 
others,  so  far  as  I  can  ascertain,  any  intimation  that  you  entertain  a 
doubt  as  to  the  equity  or  legality  of  the  claim  I  represent.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  remarks  you  have  made  at  our  various  interviews,  have  given 
me  the  impression  that  you  are  satisfied  that  the  demand  made  by  the 
state  is  a  just  one,  and  others  who  have  been  with  me  at  some  of  those 
interviews,  and  who  at  the  time,  suggested  that  if  any  doubt  existed,  it 
could  be  in  a  moment  expressed,  have  shared  with  me  that  impression. 

At  first  you  stated  that  the  amount  involved  is  large,  and  that  the 
payment  of  it  might  create  some  excitement.  I  answered  that  the 
amount  in  issue  could  not,  properly,  affect  the  decision  of  the  case  in 
any  way,  and  that  the  real  question  is  and  was,  what  are  you  legally  re- 
quired to  do,  and  not  what  may  be  the  consequences  of  the  discharge 
of  your  duty. 

At  another  time  you.  advised  me  to  sue  out  a  writ  of  mandamus,  but 
it  appeared  to  me,  aside  from  insuperable  legal  objections,  that  a  writ  of 
mandamus  could  not,  if  granted,  make  more  clear  my  right  to  ask  from 
an  appellate  tribunal  the  decision  of  an  appeal  properly  taken. 

Subsequently,  you  interposed  other  obstacles,  and  among  them  the 
suggestion  that  the  President  might  feel  some  delicacy  in  having  a 
decision  made  in  favor  of  his  own  State,  and  that  you  also  felt  some 
hesitation  in  making  a  decision  that  might  determine  the  rights  of  the 
State  of  Indiana,  the  place  of  your  residence.  To  such  excuses  there 
can  be  but  one  reply.  The  duty  of  executive  officers  in  construing  and 
executing  laws  cannot  be  affected  in  any  way  by  extraneous  circum- 
stances, or  by  the  individual  peculiarities  in  the  relations  of  the  officers, 
and  it  would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  a  State  could  be  deprived  of  the 
benefits  of  legislation,  simply  because  it,  happened  that  one  of  the  citi- 
zens of  the  State  was  the  executive  officer  charged  with  the  execution 
of  the  law.  The  character  of  the  law  affixes  no  responsibility  to  the 
officer,  neither  is  there  any  dispretion  given  to  the  Executive  to  suspend 


24 

the  solemn  enactments  of  the  legislative  department.  When  an  appeal 
is  taken  from  a  subordinate  officer  to  a  higher  one,  if  the  one  to  whom 
an  appeal  is  taken,  arbitrarily  refuse  to  consider  the  appeal,  of  what 
avail  is  the  legislation  providing  for  it  ?  I  do  not  charge  that  your  delay 
had  such  intentional  effect,  but  I  do  say  that  such  is  the  practical 
result. 

Learning  that  you  intended  to  take  your  departure  for  Indiana,  on 
Saturday  evening,  the  7th  inst,  I  made  two  special  efforts  to  obtain  a 
decision  before  you  left,  but  was  unsuccessful.  I  even  asked  that,  in 
the  event  that  you  were  unwilling  to  decide,  you  would  refer  the  case  to 
your  learned  and  ;  ble  assistant,  Judge  Otto,  or  that  you  would  make  an 
agreed  case  and  submit  it  to  the  Court  of  Claims.  These  requests  you 
also  declined.  With  deference,  I  ask  if  such  treatment  is  just  and 
respectful  to  a  sovereign  State  ?  I  make  no  complaint  of  the  inconve- 
nience I  have  personally  suffered,  although  I  came  a  distance  of  twelve 
or  fifteen  hundred  miles  to  urge  the  rights  of  Illinois,  under  an  appoint- 
ment from  her  Governor,  and  remained  here  greatly  to  the  injury  of  my 
health. 

I  have  presented  the  foregoing  considerations  without  any  unkind 
feeling,  and  only  because  the  interests  of  my  State  seemed  to  demand 
that  I  should  not  fail  to  express  my  dissatisfaction,.at  your  course. 

There  is  one  other  matter  to  which  I  wish  to  call  your  particular  at- 
tention. On  Saturday  last,  the  day  you  left  for  Indiana,  I  called  at  your 
office,  and  you  informed  me  that  "the  claim  of  Illinois  for  the  two  per 
cent,  fund  had  long  ago  been  disposed  of  at  the  Treasury  Department, 
on  my  application."  I  replied  that  it  must  be  a  mistake,  as  no  applica- 
tion I  had  made  had  ever  reached  that  department.  You  affirmed  that 
it  was  so,  and  referred  me,  for  a  confirmation  of  the  statement,  to  Judge 
Otto,  the  Assistant  Secretary,  saying  that  he  had  a  paper  or  document 
to  show  it.  I  went  immediately  to  Judge  Otto's  room  and  informed 
him  what  you  said.  He  at  once  replied  that  you  were  mistaken,  as  I 
knew  you  must  be.  Upon  further  inquiry,  I  was  informed  that  the 
paper  or  document  you  referred  to  wras  the  opinion  of  the  Comptroller 
of  the  Treasury,  to  the  effect  that  Missouri  was  entitled  to  the  two  per 
cent,  fund  on  the  lands  sold  in  that  State — a  paper  exhumed  from  the 
Treasury  Department  by  a  land  office  clerk,  and  transferred  to  your  de- 
partment, to  furnish  an  insurmountable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  rights 
of  Illinois.  The  subsequent  examination  1  made  on  Monday,  disclosed 
the  fact  that  it  was  not  in  any  sense  an  official  paper;  that  it  was  no  part 
of  the  Government  archives,  but  was  the  private  property  of  Colonel 
Wm.  II.  Jones,  for  many  years  chief  clerk  in  the  office  of  the  First 
Comptroller,  and  now  the  acting  Comptroller;  a  paper  prepared  by 
Colonel  Jones  for  his  private  information  and  satisfaction,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  a  difference  had  arisen  between  himself  and  Governor 
Medill,  (at  that  time  the  First  Comptroller,)  who  constantly  urged  that 
if  Missouri  obtained  the  five  per  cent,  the  other  States  were  legally 
equally  entitled  to  it,  as  to  the  right  of  the  State  of  Missouri ;  which 
question,  that  is  the  claim  of  Missouri,  had  been  referred  to  the  Attor- 
ney General  for  his  opinion.  Subsequently,  the  private  views  expressed 
by  Colonel  Jones  in  the  said  paper,  were  sustained  and  approved  by  the 


25 

Attorney  General,  as  appears  from  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Treasury 
Department  by  him,  dated  May  30th,  1860,  and  containing  the  follow- 
ing words  :  "I  have  examined  the  papers  you  sent  me  relative  to  the 
claim  of  Missouri  for  two  per  cent,  on  the  sales  of  public  lands,  and  am 
clear  that  she  is  entitled  to  what  she  claims." 

If  this  "document"  had  been  an  official  paper  it  could  not  be  used 
injuriously  to  the  State  of  Illinois.  Her  interests  were  in  no  way  in- 
volved with  those  of  Missouri,  nor  could  a  decision  in  regard  to  the 
rights  of  Missouri  affect  the  rights  of  Illinois.  However,  as  you  deemed 
the  paper  of  sufficient  importance  to  have  copied,  I  will  refer  to  it  briefly 
in  connection  with  what  I  have  to  say  relative  to  the  appropriations  for 
the  Cumberland — commonly  called  the  National  Koad.  I  do  not  re- 
gard the  legislation  concerning  this  road  important  to  the  determination 
of  the  legal  question  of  the  right  of  Illinois,  but  I  refer  to  it  as  a  matter 
of  contemporaneous  history. 

The  first  appropriation  made  by  Congress  to  the  national  road  was 
one  of  $30,000,  made  by  act  of  March  29,  1806,  and  long  prior  to  the 
era  of  railways.  It  was  the  intention  of  the  National  Legislature  to 
establish  a  better  and  more  direct  communication  between  the  National 
capital  and  the  Ohio  river.  Two  per  cent,  of  the  money  arising  from 
the  sales  of  public  lands  in  the  State  of  Ohio  was  reserved  to  reimburse 
the  treasury.  From  1806  to  1825  various  appropriations  were  made  to 
carry  OH  the  work.  In  the  latter  year  Congress  passed  a  law  to  extend 
the  road  to  Zanesville,  Ohio,  and  provided  that  the  appropriations  made 
for  that  object  should  be  reserved  out  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois  and  Missouri.  The  same  act  provided  that  the  Presi- 
dent should  appoint  commissioners  to  complete  the  examination  and 
survey  of  the  road  to  the  permanent  seat  of  government  in  the  State  of 
Missouri,  through  the  seats  of  government  of  the  States  of  Indiana  and 
Illinois.  From  that  time  until  1839,  about  which  period  the  under- 
taking was  abandoned,  because  Congress  refused  to  make  further  appro- 
priations, various  appropriations  were  made  in  which  the  two  per  cent, 
fund  of  Missouri,  as  well  as  that  of  other  States,  was  reserved  to  replace 
the  amounts  expended. 

That  part  of  the  road  passing  through  Maryland,  Yirginia,  Pennsyl- 
vania and  Ohio  was  competed  and  large  amounts  expended  on  it  for  re- 
pairs, and,  if  I  am  not  misinformed,  that  portion  of  it  lying  within  the 
eastern  and  western  boundary  of  Indiana  was  entirely  graded  and 
graveled  or  McAdamized  the  greater  part  of  the  way.  In  Illinois  some 
culverts  and  bridges  were  built  and  the  track  graded  at  different  points 
between  the  western  boundary  of  Indiana  and  Vandalia,  the  old  seat  of 
government,  but  it  never  passed  through  that  place,  nor  was  a»y  part  of 
it  graveled  or  completed.  Consequently,  Illinois  derived  no  benefit 
from  it,  as  I  admit  Missouri  did  not,  and  on  the  score  of  justice  they 
stand  on  equal  ground.  The  General  Government  never  kept  the  faith 
it  pledged  to  Illinois  when  it  reserved  the  two  per  cent,  by  constructing 
the  road  through  that  State,  as  there  was  an  obligation  to  do,  any  more 
than  it  complied  with  its  promise  to  Missouri.  The  amounts  expended 
upon  the  road,  in  the  aggregate,  nearly  equal  the  sum  of  $7,000,000. 
The  expenditure  in  Ohio  vastly  exceeds  the  expenditure  in  Indiana,  and 


26 

is  about  five  times  the  amount  of  her  two  per  cent.  fund.  The  sum  ex- 
pended in  Indiana  vut-tly  exceeds  the  amount,  spent  in  Illinois,  and  is 
very  largely  in  excess  of  her  two  per  cet.r.  fund,  being  two  and  a  half 
or  three  times  as  much,  \vhilotlie  amount  ica«tud  in  Illinois  does  not  very 
greatly  exceed  the  sum  due  from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands.  I  can 
see  no  reason  torso  unjust  a  discrimination  against  Illinois,  and  certainly 
the  same  reasons  that  led  Colonel  Jones  to  the  conclusion  that  Missouri 
was  entitle  1  to  the  two  percent,  fund,  support  with  equal  force  the  claim 
of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Again,  Congress  gave  the  National  road,  or  those  portions  of  it  lying 
•within  the' States  of  Maryland,  Virginia,  .Pennsylvania,  Ohio  and  In- 
diana, to  those  States  respectively,  and  each  of  said  Slates,  by  solemn 
acts  of  their  respective  Legislatures,  accepted  the  donations,  and  estab- 
lished toll-gates.  JSTo  such  legislation  was  had  in  regard  to  Illinois,  nor 
did  her  Legislature  accept  the  work  within  her  limits,  thus  showing  con- 
clusively that  Congress  regarded  what  had  been  done  in  that  State  as 
valueless,  and  the  State  herself  has  always  so  considered.  Hence  her 
"equity"  survives,  and  her  claim  is  a  well  founded  and  subsisting  one, 
and  could  not  have  been  invalidated  even  by  a  donation  of  the  road 
from  Congress.  The  road  was  surrendered  to  Ohio  under  an  act  ap- 
proved March  2d,  1831.  By  acts  of  June  21th,  1834,  and  March  3d, 
1835,  it  was  surrendered  to  the  States  of  Maryland,  Virginia  and  Penn- 
sylvania. I  have  been  unable  to  lay  my  hand  on  the  law  surrendering 
to  Indiana  that  portion  of  the  road  lying  within  her  limits,  and  the  act 
of  her  Legislature  accepting  it,  but  they  are  doubtless  familiar  to  you. 

Colonel  Jones  is  mistaken  when  he  says  the  United  States  "ceded  all 
their  interest  in  it,  (the  road,)  whether  finished  or  unfinished,  to  the  re- 
spective States  within  which  it  was  laid  out."  The  legislation  was  con- 
fined to  that  part  of  the  work  which  \vas  available.  To  have  gone  be- 
yond this  would  have  been  useless  and  foolish.  Col.  Jones  is  also  mis- 
taken when  he  says  that  the  appropriations  for  the  road,  made  after 
1825,  were  all  expended  within  the  states  of  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois. 
Large  sums  were  expended  east  of  the  Ohio  river,  and  expenditures 
»were  made  in  that  direction  until  the  work  was  abandoned,  or  until 
within  a  short  time  of  such  abandonment.  It  is  but  just  to  add,  that 
when  considering  the  claim  of  Missouri  apart  from  the  claims  of  Ohio, 
Indiana  and  Illinois',  Col.  Jones'  reasoning  is  sound  and  his  views  are 
just  and  discriminating. 

It  is  proper  for  me  now  to  show  how  these  facts  are  rel  ted  to  the 
case  I  present.  The  sixth  section  of  the  enabling  act  for  Illinois  reserves 
two  per  cent,  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  to  construct  roads 
"leading  to  said  State."  Of  course  such  roads  were  to  be  jree  public 
highways.  Congress  had  no  power  to  take  the  Illinois  two  per  cent, 
fund  to  build  private  turnpikes  in  Indiana,  Ohio,  or  any  other  state* 
How  could  it  profit  Illinois  to  have  a  road  leading  to  her  borders,  upon 
which  tax-gatherers  sit  a  few  miles  apart,  to  collect  tribute  from  her  citi- 
zens? Such  a  road  is  f  private  one,  and  is  the  private  property  of  the 
state  or  of  individuals.  Congress,  by  express  legislation,  has  made  the 
National  Road  the  private  property  of  the  states  through  which  it  passes, 
and  the  states  possess  and  control  the  respective  parts  as  their  own.  Is 

I— 


it  then  an  answer  to  the  claim  of  the  Shite  of  Illinois,  that  she  is  barred 
by  the  benefits  conferred  upon  others,  in  viohirion  of  a  compact,  subsist- 
in^  between  the  General  Government  and  herself?  Is  the  money  of 
the  State  to  be  taken  for  the  use  of  other  states,  or  wasted  within  her 
own  boundaries,  without  consulting  her?  I  do  not  know  what  \iews 
others  may  hold,  but  it  does  not  seem  to  me  that  such  a  policy  has  any 
foundation  in  law  or  equity.  Illinois  agreed  with  the  United  States,  as 
a  consideration  for  the  n've  per  cent,  set  apart  in  her  enabling  act,  that 
she  would  not  tax  the  public  lands  for  or  (luring  the  term  of  live  years, 
from  and  after  the  day  of  sale  ;  that  the  military  lands  of  the  Stale,  while 
they  remained  in  the  hands  of  the  patentees,  or  their  heirs,  should  not 
be  taxed  for  three  years  after  the  date  of  the  patents  respectively,  and 
that  lands  of  non-residents  should  not  be  taxed  higher  than  the  lands  of 
residents.  This  agreement  the  State  has  faithfully  kept,  and  now  only 
asks  the  same  observance  of  its  faith  and  promise  on  th«-part  of  the  Na- 
tional Government.  If  the  road  was  "to  be  extended  to  the  permanent 
seat  of  government  of  the  state  of  Missouri,"  it  was  also  to  pass  through 
the  Capital  and  State  of  Illinois.  Inasmuch  as  it  did  neither,  and  was 
only  partially  constructed,  in  the  manner  hereinbefore  described,  and 
the  w<»rk  actually  done  being  valueless,  for  the  reason  that  it  was  not 
completed  according  to  agreement  by  the  Government,  Illinois  has  cer- 
tainly as  strong  an  "' fgUif&kle"  ri^ht  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  as  that 
of  any  state  that  succeeded  in  obtaining  it.  I  have  heretofore  shown 
that  all  but  three  states  in  which  public  lands  lie  have  received  it.  Her 
legal  right  to  it  is  equally  clear.  In  my  communication  to  yon,  of  the 
2uth  nlf.,  I  briefly  indicated  the  points  upon  which  I  rely.  1  will  now 
add  something  to  the  considerations  then  presented.  In  doing  so,  how- 
ever, I  shall  not  revert  to  what  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office  has  or  has  not  done  undet  the  law,  as  it  cannot  in  any  way  affect 
the  issue  now  made.  I  will,  nevertheless,  express  my  dissent  from  the 
opinion  expressed  by  the  Commissioner  in  his  letter  to  me  under  date 
of  February  13,  1863,  wherein  he  says,  "the  acts  to  which  you  refer  re- 
late to  moneys  received  by  the  Government  tor  lands  which  had  been 
reserved  for  certain  Indian  tribe*."  Upon  every  principle  of  construc- 
tion, technical  o- just,  they  are  cumulative,  and  have  a  wider  scope  and 
a  deeper  significance  than  the  Commissioner  is  willing  to  accord  to  them. 
The  lion.  Thomas  A.  Ilendricks,  formerly  Commissioner  of  the  Gen- 
eral Land  Office,  and  now  United  States  Senator  from  the  state  of  Indi- 
ana, in  a  letter  to  me,  held  the  following  language,  officially  : 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  January  8,  1858. 
HON.  I.  N    MORRIS, 

House  of  Representatives: 

SIR —  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
yesterday,  in  which  you  inquire  whether  the  government  will  be  pre- 
pared to  pay  over  to  the  State  of  Illinois  the  two  per  cent.  fund,  to 
which  she  will  be  entitled  in  virtue  of  the  act  of  April  18,  1818,  for  her 
admission  into  the  Union,  when  the  same  shall  have  been  ascertained, 
as  required  by  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1857,  and  the  said  act  of 
admission. 


28 

In  reply,  I  have  to  state  that  the  amount  you  refer  to  shall  be  adjusted 
as  soon  as  the  great  pressure  of  business  will  admit  of  it,  and  I  am  not 
aware  of  any  reason  for  withholding  payment  of  the  amount  to  which 
the  State  may  be  entitled  when  the  same  shall  have  been  ascertained. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  A.  HENDKIOKS,  Commissioner. 

One  of  your  predecessors,  the  Hon.  Jacob  Thompson,  in  an  opinion 
which  is  upon  record  in  your  department,  construed  the  law  of  March 
3,  1857,  providing  for  the  settlement  of  the  five  per  cent,  account  of 
Mississippi  and  other  states,  as  giving  to  that  State  and  to  Alabama  the 
five  per  cent,  on  lands  located  within  their  limits  with  Indian  scrip.  In 
that  opinion  he  says :  "  This  same  principle  of  adjustment,"  (meaning, 
as  Col.  Jones  well  remarks,  what  amount  may  be  due  Mississippi  and 
other  states  for  the  two  per  cent,  reserved)  "  the  second  section  of  the 
act  under  discussion,  extends  to  be  applied  to  the  settlement  of  the  five  per 
cent,  account  of  the  OTHER  STATES." 

Again  he  says :  "  Thus  as  regards  justice  and  right,  Alabama  and 
Mississippi  are  entitled  to  a  liberal  construction  of  the  acts  of  Congress 
of  March  3, 1855  and  March  3,  1857,  and  as  a  matter  of  equity  between 
these  two  states  as  claimants  against  the  United  States,  and  as  between 
them  and  the  other  states  of  the  Union,  all  are  entitled  to  the  same 
equal  and  liberal  construction  in  carrying  the  act  of  1857  into  effect." 

That  Mr.  Hendricks  and  Mr.  Thompson  were  right  in  their  views  of 
the  act  of  1857,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  I  have  already  verbally 
explained  to  you  why  the  claim  of  Illinois  was  not  paid  under  Mr. 
Buchanan's  administration. 

For  further  expression  of  my  own  views  concerning  the  legal  question 
involved,  I  respectfully  again  refer  you  to  my  letter  to  you  bearing  date 
February  20th.  In  view  of  the  opinion  I  entertain  of  your  legal  ability 
and  experience,  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  discuss  more  fully  the 
construction  to  be  put  upon  the  law. 

I  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  a  letter  filed  with  you,  dated 
February  23, 1863,  signed  by  all  the  members  of  the  late  Congress  from 
Illinois,  and  by  Gen.  Farnsworth,  Judge  Norton  and  Col.  Morrison, 
members  elect  of  the  38th  Congress,  expressing  the  opinion  that  the 
State  is  legally  and  equitably  entitled  to  the  two  per  cent,  under  existing 
laws,  and  urging  the  payment  of  the  amount. 

The  present  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  while  differing 
from  me  in  the  construction  of  the  acts  of  1855  and  1857,  says,  in  a 
letter  dated  General  Land  Office,  February  14,  1863,  and  addressed  to 
the  Hon.  John  F.  Potter,  Chairman  of  the  House  Committee  on  Public 
Lands :  "  There  is  no  reason  known  why  the  State  of  Illinois  should 
not  stand  upon  the  same  footing  as  the  State  of  Missouri,  in  regard  to 
which  latter  Congress  has  given  a  precedent  by  the  act  of  February  28, 
1859."  Adopting  the  view  expressed  by  the  commissioner,  the  Com- 
mittee on  Public  Lands  in  the  House  unanimously  instructed  their 
chairman  to  report  a  joint  resolution  and  recommend  its  passage,  fur- 
nished by  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  directing  as  a 
matter  of  justice  and  right,  the  payment  to  Illinois  of  the  two  per  cent. 


29 

The  chairman  of  the  committee  was  firm  in  the  belief  that  existing  laws 
required  the  payment  of  the  money,  and  the  resolution  could  only  be 
valuable,  inasmuch  as  it  might  overcome  the  scruples  of  the  commis- 
sioner and  obtain  a  statement  of  the  account.  The  committee,  however, 
from  the  time  the  resolution  was  agreed  on  had  no  opportunity  to  report. 
Indeed,  I  myself,  requested  Mr.  Potter  to  withhold  it,  as  upon  consulta- 
tion with  Mr.  Washburne  and  others,  it  was  thought  unnecessary  and 
unwise  to  duplicate  existing  legislation.  It  may  not  be  out  of  place  to 
remark  that  the  mere  fact  that  the  representatives  of  one  State  obtained 
the  passage  of  a  joint  resolution  by  Congress  to  compel  a  reluctant 
officer  to  do  his  duty  cannot  invalidate  the  rights  of  other  states  under 
existing  laws. 

In  conclusion,  I  will  say  that  I  think  I  have  shown  clearly, 

1.  That  the  State  of  Illinois  is  equitably  entitled  to  the  payment  of 
her  claim. 

2.  That  she  is  legally  entitled  to  the  payment  of  it. 

3.  That  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  late  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  Mr.  Thompson,  the  late  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office,  Mr.  Hendricks,  the  delegation  from  Illinois  in  Congress,  and  the 
House  Committee  on  Public  Lands,  and  all  other  persons  to  whom  the 
question  has  been  officially  or  unofficially  presented,  excepting  only  the 
present  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  consider  the  existing 
legislation  sufficient  to  secure  the  rights  of  the  State  and  the  payment 
of  the  claim. 

4.  That  the  present  Commissioner  of  the   General  Land   Office 
unequivocally  admits  the  equitable  character  of  the  State's  claim. 

"Without  adding  anything  to  these  considerations,  I  leave  the  interest 
of  Illinois  to  you,  in  confident  expectation  of  a  just  and  equitable 
decision.  All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

.  I.  K  MORRIS. 

4 

My  letter  of  March  10th,  seemed  to  be  demanded  by  the  supposition 
that  I  should  not  be  able  to  wait  in  Washington  until  the  Interior  Sec- 
retary's return  from  Indiana,  and  from  the  additional  consideration  that 
the  paper  prepared  by  Col.  Jones  was  given  an  undue  importance 
against  the  rights  of  the  State,  and  made  it  necessary  that  1  should 
discuss  more  in  detail  than  I  had  done,  or  proposed  to  do,  the  question 
of  the  National  Road. 

Wearied  with  unnecessary  delay  at  the  Interior  Department,  I  deter- 
mined to  take  an  appeal  to  the  President.  After  calling  several  times 
without  seeing  him,  and  being  afterwards  too  much  indisposed  to  leave 
my  room,  I  prepared  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  Hon.  P.  13.  Fouke  the 
following  paper,  which  he  read  to  the  President  on  the  23d  of  March, 
instead  of  the  20th,  as  that  was  the  first  interview  he  had  with  him  after 
a  persevering  effort  of  ten  days  to  obtain  one : 

MR.  PRESIDENT  —  I  sincerely  regret  the  necessity  of  again  troubling 
you  with  the  business  pertaining  to  Illinois,  intrusted  to  me  by  Gover- 
nor Yates.  Nothing  but  an  imperative  sense  of  public  duty  could 
induce  me  to  do  it.  At  our  interviews  I  cheerfully  admit  you  have 
treated  me  and  the  subject  with  great  frankness  and  justice ;  for  you 


80 

not  only  heard  my  presentation  of  the  case  with  patience,  but  at  once 
decided  that  the  State  was  entitled  to  the  benefit  which  I  insisted  the 
laws  confer  upon  her.  If  you  had  not  so  determined,  the  claim  would 
not  have  been  pressed.  You  have  also,  with  the  most  commendable 
candor  and  fairness,  given  to  others  the  same  construction  to  the  laws 
that  yon  did  to  me.  I  am  therefore  surprised  that  after  weeks  of  patient 
waiting,  the  Interior  Department  has  not  decided  the  appeal,  involving 
the  claim  of  the  State  now  pending  before  it.  To  obtain  a  decision,  I 
have  resorted  to  every  respectful  and  honorable  means  without  success. 
First  one  pretext  and  then  another  has  been  interposed  for  delay,  which 
it  is  not  requisite  I  should  detail  to  you.  I  am  persuaded  the  delay  has 
not  arisen  from  want  of  time,  for  the  Interior  Secretary  has  found  leis- 
ure to  quit  the  post  of  his  official  labors  here  and  go  to  Indiana  to  attend 
to  private  professional  business  there,  leaving  the  case  of  Illinois,  which 
it  would  have  taken  but  a  moment  to  determine,  undisposed  of.  Hence 
there  must  be  some  other  motive  or  reason  for  his  course  not  now 
necessary  to  inquire  into. 

On  Friday  last,  the  13th  instant,  Governor  Yates,  then  being  in  Wash- 
ington, telegraphed  to  the  secretary  that  as  he  was  absent,  he  would 
be  obliged  if  he  would  allow  his  assistant  secretary,  Judge  Otto,  to 
decide  the  case.  The  secretary  replied  that  Judge  Otto  might  do  so  if 
his  other  duties  would  permit,  but  the  Judge  declined  to  act. 

Despairing  of  obtaining  a  decision  from  the  Interior  Department,  and 
no  sufficient  reason  being  assigned  by  the  secretary  for  the  procrastina- 
tion, L  appeal  to  you  sir,  to  see  that  justice  is  done  to  Illinois  I  believe 
this  is  the  only  hope  she  has  of  having  it  awarded  to  her.  I  make  the 
appeal  with  the  full  confidence  and  belief  that  you  will  direct  that  the 
laws  shall  be  executed.  Your  impartial  justice  and  high  sense  ot  pub- 
lic duty  afford  a  sufficient  guarranty  of  your  action  in  the  premises. 

My  health  is  bad,  and  if  I  leave  here  without  the  account  bein^j  made 
up  and  reviewed  by  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasuiy,  which  I  will 
have  to  do  unless  the  matter  is  disposed  of  soon,  the  piobabiliry  is  the 
business  will  remain  just  wh«re  1  left  it.  As  it  now  stands,  I  shall  only 
be  able  to  report  to  the  Governor,  and  through  him  to  the  Legislature 
and  people  of  Illinois,  that  your  secretary  has  crushed  under  his  feet, 
and  refuses  to  give  practical  effect  to  laws  which  you  have,  decided 
require  the  payment  of  the  State's  demand.  I  know  of  nothing  more 
I  can  do.  If  I  have  been  importunate,  it  was  because  I  thought  the 
interests  of  my  State  required  it,  and  I  believed  myself  unnecessarily 
delayed. 

On  four  occasions  I  have  sought  opportunities  to  personally  preeent 
these  views,  but  your  other  engagements  prevented.  I  have,  therefoie, 
reduced  them  to  writing  and  placed  them  in  the  hands  of  Hon.  P.  E. 
Fouke,  to  read  to  yon,  as  he  has  an  engagement  to  meet  you  to-morrow 
morning.  Your  answer  to  him  will  determine  my  future  action.  I  do 
not  permit  myself,  however,  to  doubt  but  it  will  be  favorable,  and  that 
I  shall  have  the  agreeable  duty  to  p<  rt'orm  of  paying  to  the  people  ot 
Illinois  they  are  indebted  to  your  ]  r>  .mptne^s  and  justice  for  the  recog- 
nition and  enforcement  of  their  long  delayed  rights. 

L  K  MORRIS. 

Washington,  March  19,  1863. 


31 

The  President  desired  to  know  of  Col.  Fouke  whether  he  appeared 
on  behalf  of  the  State.  The  Colonel  replied  that  he  did,  at  iny  instance, 
which  makes  it  proper  to  state  what  occurred  at  the  interview  between 
them  pertaining  to  the  public  business  witli  which  1  was  entrusted. 

As  lie  had  frequently  done  before,  the  President  said  that  the  claim 
of  the  State  was  all  right — that  its  payment  was  a  mere  question  of 
time — that  the  pressure  upon  the  Treasury  at  the  present  was  so  great 
that  it  could  not  be  paid  now  very  well,  etc.  He  also  said  o  Colonel 
Fouke  that  he  had  talked  with  Mr.  Usher,  his  Secretary  of  the  Intc'rior, 
on  the  subject,  arid  that  his  secretary  entertained  precisely  the  same 
views  ff  the  lavs  ujjon  which  the  cldm  of  the  State  is  based  as  he  himself 
did — that  he,  the  (secretary,  had  so  said  to  him.  It  already  distinctly 
appears  in  this  report  what  is  the  President's  view  of  the  laws. 

Judge  Otto,  the  able  assistant  secietary,  I  presume,  agrees  with  the 
president  and  secretary  in  their  construction  of  the  law,  for  the  secretary 
said  to  me  that  the  Judge  "believed  the  case  a  very  strong  one  in  tavor 
of  the  State."  It  appears,  therefore,  that  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  is  fully  committed  in  favor  of  the  State's  claim,  and  that  what 
I  have  accomplished  so  far  is : 

1.  A  respectful  consideration  of  the  State's  demand. 

2.  A  recognition  of  its  legality  and  equity. 

But  one  other  question  remains  undisposed  of.  The  administration 
having  admitted  the  legality  and  equity  of  the  claim,  will  they  pay  it? 
This  they  cannot  avoid  doing,  except  in  one  of  two  ways : 

1.  By  arbitrarily  and  willfully  disregarding  the  provisions  of  a  plain 
law  which  tiiey  have  sworn  to  execute ;  or, 

2.  By  pleading  bankruptcy  for  the  government  in  bar. 

Will  they  do  either?  I  have  not  yet  seen  anything  to  convince  me 
they  design  to  resort  to  such  disreputable  means.  The  payment  of  the 
claim  is  only  postponed  for  a  short  time,  as  1  understand  the  matter — 
the  law  not  totally  suspended.  To  attempt  the  latter  would  be  a  flagrant 
act  of  injustice  and  wroiig,  which  any  honorable  government  would 
scorn,  and  I  have  no  belief  that  the  administration  intends  that  injury 
shall  be  done  to  the  State.  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not,  in  my  interviews  with 
him,  manifest  any  such  disposition,  nor  have  I  any  fear  that  he  will. 
His  Interior  Secretary,  I  have  thought  and  still  think,  resorted  to 
unnecessary  delay,  but  I  do  not  believe  he  designs,  in  the  end,  to  will- 
fully do  the  State  a  wrong,  though  when  I  addressed  my  communication 
to  the  president  it  seemed  aa  though  he  did.  The  amount  of  the  claim, 
in  view  of  which  he  has  two  or  three  times  threatened  to  decide  against 
the  State,  if  forced  to  decide  at  the  present,  upon  the  exploded  hypothe- 
sis of  expenditures  on  the  National  Road,  is,  I  am  now  convinced,  all 
that  prevents  his  prompt  action.  Such  a  consideration,  however,  cannot 
long  prevail  against  a  well  established  and  subsisting  demand,  nor  do  I 
think  the  secretary  seriously  contemplates  it  should. 

The  following  letter  and  my  note  relating  thereto,  will  show  Ihe  states 
which  have  received  the  five  per  cent.;  and  why  should  Illinois  be 
turned  away  with  her  measure  empty  when  others  have  been  filled? 
"Why  should  she  be  unjustly  discriminated  against?  Instead  of  the 
president  subjecting  himself  to  censure  by  having  the  demand  paid,  he 
should  delight,  and  I  think  will  delight,  in  the  opportunity  he  has  of 


32 

rendering  an  act  of  justice  to  his  State,  which  has  so  often  and  faithfully 
honored  him.  At  all  events,  being  a  citizen  of  Illinois  should  not  deter 
him  from  doing  his  duty  by  her,  nor  do  I  believe  it  will. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  February  17,  1863. 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS: 

SIR — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  14th  instant,  I  have  the  honor  to 
inform  you  that  the  following  named  states  have  received  from  the  gen- 
eral government  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public 
lands,  viz:  Louisiana,  Arkansas,  Michigan,  Wisconsin,  Kansas,  Iowa 
and  Minnesota.* 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 

I  have  mentioned  that  the  magnitude  of  the  claim  was  the  only  cause 
delaying  its  payment.  I  do  not  know  that  I  can  state  to  your  Excel- 
lency the  precise  amount  of  it,  but  I  can  very  nearly  give  it.  The  law 
of  1857  fixes  the  value  of  all  public  lands  at  $1  25  per  acre,  as  a  basis 
for  the  computation  of  the  five  per  cent.  I  obtained,  when  in  Wash- 
ington, a  tabular  statement,  showing  the  various  payments  to  the  State 
of  the  three  per  cent,  fund,  the  aggregate  of  which  is  $711,179  54.  If 
the  aggregate  amount  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  should  be  equal  to 
$1  25  per  acre,  which  is  probably  just  about  the  sum  realized  for 
them,  then  the  two  per  cent,  fund  is  precisely  equal  to  two-thirds  of 
$711,179  54,  and  is.  consequently,  $474,119  69.  If  the  aggregate 
amount  received  for  the  lands  should  be  more  than  equivalent  to  $1  25 
per  acre,  in  that  event  the  two  per  cent,  would  be  something  less  than  I 
Lave  stated  it.  The  difference,  however,  cannot  be  large,  if  anything, 
and  the  claim  of  the  State  may  be  put  down  safely,  in  round  numbers, 
at  four  hundred  and  seventy-four  thousand  dollars,  upon  which  interest 
ought  to  be  paid  from  the  time  I  made  the  demand  for  the  money  in 
behalf  of  the  State,  December  12th,  1857. 

When  I  reached  Washington,  on  the  7th  of  February  last,  I  found 
the  claim  resting  just  where  I  had  left  it  when  my  Congressional  term 
expired  in  1861,  no  one  having  done  anything  about  it,  and  I  resumed 
the  management  of  it  at  that  point.  I  shall  continue  its  prosecution  un- 
til the  money  is  paid,  using  therein  my  best  endeavors  and  discretion. 
Sickness,  and  what  appeared  a  sincere  and  earnest  desire  on  the  part  of 
the  administration  for  a  short  delay,  were  my  only  reasons  for  returning 
home  when  I  did.  If  the  account  is  not  made  up  within  a  reasonable 
time,  which  I  hope  will  be  the  case,  I  shall  once  more  visit  Washing- 
ton, and  should  I  then  again  fail  in  obtaining  the  voluntary  payment  of 
the  demand  from  the  Executive  Department  of  the  government,  which 
is  charged  with  the  duty  of  seeing  that  the  laws  are  "faithfully  execu- 
ted"— a  thing  I  do  not  permit  myself  to  anticipate — I  shall  adopt  anoth- 
er course  for  the  recovery  of  the  money.  But  I  ought  not  to  contem- 

*  To  the  above  Jist  must  be  added  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  California  and  Oregon, 
which  states  have  received  their  full  five  per  cent,  and  were  omitted  by  the  commissioner  in 
his  statement.  I.  X.  MORRIS. 


33 

plate  any  adverse  result.  The  possibility  that  the  administration  will 
compel  the  State  to  resort  to  compulsory  means  to  obtain  her  admitted 
rights,  is  too  remote  to  be  seriously  considered.  For  it  cannot  be  that 
the  President,  who  is  so  clear  in  his  view  of  the  law,  will  fail  to  see  it 
executed.  To  refuse  a  compliance  with  its  provisions  would  be  a  gross 
wrong,  which  it  would  be  unjust  to  anticipate. 

My  action  in  the  premises,  I  trust,  meets  your  Excellency's  approba- 
tion, and,  I  hope,  will  redound  to  the  honor  of  your  administration  and 
the  interest  of  the  State. 

I  acknowledge  with  satisfaction,  your  energetic  determination  in  the 
prosecution  of  the  claim,  and  thank  you  for  your  confidence  and  valua- 
ble aid. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

I.  N.  MOKRIS. 

QUINCY,  ILL.,  April  1863. 


i 

—5 


APPENDIX 


The  following  correspondence,  and  the  favorable  action  of  the  commit- 
tee on  public  lands,  transpired  through  my  agency ;  but,  as  I  have  stated 
elsewhere,  it  was  not  thought  best,  upon  more  mature  reflection,  to  ask 
any  further  legislation  from  Congress,  as  that  already  existing  was 
deemed  amply  sufficient  to  secure  the  payment  of  the  State's  demand. 

In  this  connection,  I  cannot  refrain  from  saying  that  our  State  owes 
to  Mr.  Potter,  of  "Wisconsin,  a  debt  of  gratitude  for  his  prompt,  just  and 
liberal  action  in  her  hehalf,  as  chairman  of  the  committee  on  public 
lands,  in  the  House.  I.  N.  MORRIS. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 

Washington  City,  Feb.  13*A,  1863. 
HELoN.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS, 

Commissioner  of  General  Public  Land  Office  : 

SIR — Will  you  favor  me  with  a  resolution  which,  in  its  terms,  will 
•authorize  the  payment  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  sales 
of  public  lands  in  Illinois,  reserved  in  the  act  admitting  her  into  the 
Union,  for  road  purposes,  and  which,  in  similar  instances,  has  been  re- 
linquished to  or  given  to  other  new  States. 

I  hope  you  will  also  favor  me  with  your  views  upon  the  propriety  and 
justice  of  allowing  said  two  per  cent,  fund  to  said  State. 
Yours  very  respectfully, 

JOHN  F.  POTTER, 
Chairman  Committee  on  Public  Lands. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  Feb.  14,  1863. 

SIR—  Pursuant  to  your  request  of  yesterday,  I  have  the  honor  to  in- 
close herewith,  a  draft  of  a  joint  resolution  in  reference  to  the  relinquish- 
naent  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  to  the  State  of  Illinois. 

This  resolve  proposes  to  relinquish,  upon  the  application  of  the  Gov- 
ernor, instead  of  pursuant  to  an  act  of  the  Legislature — with  that  modifi 
cation  to  avoid  delay.  There  is  no  reason  known  why  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois should  not  stand  upon  the  same  footing  in  the  matter,  as  the  State 


35 

of  Missouri,  in  regard  to  which  latter,  Congress  has  given  precedent  by 
the  act  of  February  28th,  1859.     Stat's,  vol.  11,  page  388,  chap.  65. 
With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  EDMUNDS, 

Commissioner. 
HON.  JOHN  F.  PO-ITER, 

Chair1  n  Com.  on  Public  Lands,  House  of  Reps. 

Joint  resolution  in  relation  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  due  the  State  of 
Illinois,  unanimously  agreed  upon  by  the  House  committee  on  public 
lands,  and  its  passages  recommended : 

Resolved  by  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United 
States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  principles  of  the  act 
of  Congress  approved  February  28th,  1859,  "giving  the  assent  of  Con- 
gress to  a  law  of  the  Missouri  Legislature,  for  the  application  of  the  re- 
served two  per  cent,  land  fund  of  said  State,"  shall  be  applied  to  the 
State  of  Illinois,  with  this  modification,  that  the  relinquishment  of  the 
United  States  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  contemplated  in  the  third  clause 
of  the  sixth  section  of  the  Illinois  Enabling  Act,  approved  April  18th, 
1818,  shall  take  effect  from  and  after  the  date  of  the  acceptance  of  said 
relinquishment  by  the  Governor  of  said  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  account- 
ing officer  of  the  government  shall  thereupon  adjust  the  claim  of  said 
State  of  Illinois  in  like  manner,  as  directed  by  said  act  of  February  28th, 
1859,  in  regard  to  the  State  of  Missouri. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  bill  referred  to  in  the  foregoing  report, 
and  which  1  introduced  into  the  House  of  .Representatives. 

I.  K  MORRIS. 

A  Bill  authorizing  the  payment  of  the  two  per  centum  land  fund  to 

which  the  State  of  Illinois  is  tmtitled,  for  road  purposes. 
SECTION  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives 
of  the  United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  the  two  per 
centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  the  State 
df  Illinois,  reserved  by  existing  laws  to  be  expended  in  said  State,  un- 
der the  directions  of  Congress,  for  road  purposes,  be  and  the  same  is 
hereby  relinquished  to  said  State,  and  that  the  proper  accounting  offi- 
cers of  the  United  States  are  hereby  authorized  and  required  to  audit 
and  pay  the  accounts  in  full  for  the  same,  as  in  the  case  of  the  three  per 
centum  land  fund  of  said  State,  to  the  Governor  thereof,  or  his  author- 
ized agent. 


SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT 


ON   THE 


TWO  P*ER  CENT.  FUND, 


SUBMITTED   TO   HIS   EXCELLENCY 


RICHARD     YATES, 


GOVERNOR   OF   THE    STATE    OF   ILLINOIS. 


SIR — I  beg  leave  to  submit,  most  respectfully,  a  supplements!  report 
in  the  matter  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  due  from  the  United  States  to 
the  State  of  Illinois,  for  road  purposes.  In  August  last  I  again  repaired 
to  Washington,  and  engaged  in  the  further  active  prosecution  of  the 
claim  of  the  State  to  said  fund.  As  in  February  last,  I  found  it  resting 
precisely  where  I  had  left  it  in  1861,  so  in  August,  I  found/it  resting 
precisely  where  I  had  left  it  in  February.  Government  functionaries 
do  not  seem  inclined  to  disturb  its  repose  unless  they  are  urged  forward 
to  their  duty  with  a  pressing  and  ceaseless  vigilance. 

I  am  fully  satisfied  the  Interior  Department  had  determined  not  to 
decide  the  case  pending  before  it,  involving  the  State's  demand,  and 
that  it  never  would  have  been  decided  in  that  department  but  for  a  per- 
emptory order  from  the  President  to  take  it  up  and  dispose  of  it.  Even 
then,  as  soon  as  that  order  was  given,  in  writing  and  verbally,  to  the  In- 
terior Secretary,  he  left  his  official  po&t  in  Washington,  and  went  to  In- 
diana, as  he  had  done  once  before,  and  thus  avoided  acting  upon  the 
question  himself,  leaving  it  to  be  disposed  of  by  his  inferior  officer.  I 
leave  such  neglect  of  official  dnty — such  contempt  for  the  order  of  the 
President,  and  the  respect  which  is  due  to  a  sovereign  State,  to  be  judged 
of  and  estimated  as  your  Excellency  may  determine.  I  will  only  state 
the  facts,  and  leave  others  tcv  draw  couelusiona. 


38 

A  few  days  after  my  arrival  in  Washington,  I  was  able  to  obtain  an 
interview  with  the  President,  and  made  to  him  the  following  short  ad- 
dress : 

ADDRESS. 

ME.  PRESIDENT  :  Each  house  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Illinois,  at 
their  adjourned  session  in  June,  unanimously  adopted  a  memorial  ad- 
dressed to  you,  expressive  of  their  earnest  desire  that  you  should  see 
carried  into  effect  the  laws  requiring  the  payment  to  that  State  of  the 
two  per  cent,  land  fund  due  to  her  from  the  General  Government  for 
road  purposes.  Each  house,  also,  unanimously  passed  a  resolution  ap- 
pointing me  to  lay  before  you,  in  person,  their  respective  memorials,  and 
I  now  perform  that  duty. 

To  attempt,  on  this  occasion,  a  re-argument  in  support  of  the  claim  I 
represent  would  be  ^nothing  more  than  a  useless  multiplication  of  words, 
as  we  have  heretofore  gone  over  the  premises  together,  and  the  conclu- 
sion has  been  reached.  I  cannot,  however,  refrain  from  observing  that 
objections  have  heretofore  been  raised  in  the  Interior  Department  to 
acting  on  the  appeal  pending  before  it,  which,  to  say  the  least,  are  re- 
garded by  intelligent  and  legal  minds  as  singularly  strange  to  come  from 
one  of  the  executive  officers  of  a  great  government.  These  objections 
have  all  been  purely  technical,  and  no  one  of  them  has  any  bearing 
against  the  legal  or  equitable  character  of  the  demand.  It  was  said  to 
me  in  that  department  that  if  some  victories  could  be  won  they  would 
feel  more  like  paying  the  money.  Those  victories  "have  been  gloriously 
achieved  by  the  Union  arms,  and  have  rejoiced  the  heart  of  every  true 
American,  so  that  that  objection  no  longer  applies.  Indeed,  I  insist 
that  no- objection  which  has  been  made,  properly  attaches  to  the  case. 
It  is  now  pending  on  an  appeal,  which  a  certain  law  of  Congress  pro- 
vides for  taking  from  an  inferior  to  a  superior  tribunal,  and  according 
to  the- legal' rule  must  be  determined  upon  the  record  sent  up.  Any 
point  made  outside  of  the  record  is  extra-judicial  and  improper.  But  if 
the  objections  were  just  and  referred  to  the  merits  of  the  cause,  the 
State  would  have  less  reason  to  complain.  As  they  are  not,  and  only 
look  to  delay,  I' must,  in  the  discharge  of  my  public  duty,  protest  against 
them.  If  I  should  fail  to  enter  my  dissent,  my  silence  might  be  con- 
strued as  acquiescing  in  their  propriety. 

The  memorials,  Mr.  President,  which  I  have  presented,  are  addressed 
to  you  in  your  executive  capacity.  Illinois  understands  too  well  what 
is  due  to  her  own  dignity  and  honor  to 'request  any  special  favor  for  her- 
self at  your  hands.  If  she  did  not,  your  own  character  is  too  well  un- 
derstood for  her  to  make  such  an  unwise  attempt.  She  stands  upon  the 
law  and  the  justice  of  her  cause.  As  her  agent,  with  the  view  of  getting 
the  opinions  of  distinguished  jurists  upon  the  legality  and  equity  of  her 
claim,  I  addressed  inquiries  upon  the  subject  to  Judge  Davis,  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States,  Judges  Drummond  and  Treat,  of  the 
United  States  District  Courts  for  Illinois,  Judges  "Walker  and  Caton,  of 
the  Supreme  Bench  of  that  State,  to  the  State  officers  and  others,  and 
now  respectfully  lay  their  replies  before  you,  from  which  you  will  see 
their  views  correspond  with  your  own  heretofore  expressed,  and  sustain 
the  construction  I  have  uniformly  given  to  the  laws  upon  which  the 


39 

State's  demand  is  based.  Thus  the  judges  I  have  named,  the  Executive 
of  the  State,  the  State  officers,  both  houses  of  the  General  Assembly, 
and  all  the  members  of  Congress  from  Illinois,  unite  in  the  opinion  that 
existing  legislation  requires  the  payment  of  the  sum  I  am  authorized  to 
demand  from  the  General  Government.  In  my  interviews  heretofore 
with  you  touching  the  matter  I  have  in  hand,  you  have  not  only  treated 
me  with  great  courtesy,  but  the  State  with  entire  fairness,  and  I  was 
proud  to  acknowledge  the  fact  in  my  report  to  Governor  Yates. 

I  know  full  well  I  have  not  brought  to  the  support  of  the  claim,  that 
ability  which  its  importance  and  merit  demand ;  but  I  hope  I  can  say 
without  arrogance,  that,  if  I  have  fallen  short. in  this,  I  have  done 
nothing  in  the  premises  to  dishonor  my  State,  or  prejudice  her  interest. 

The  result,  Mr.  President,  is  with  you  ;  for  it  is  to  you  the  State  looks 
for  the  fulfillment  of  her  too  long  delayed  rights.  Let  me  add,  she  dftes 
not  expect  to  look  in  vain.  I  have  now  said,  Mr.  President,  about  all  I 
deem  it  necessary  to  say,  except  to  add,  that  the  State  ought  not  to  be 
compelled,  nor  can  I  believe  you  will  require  it  of  her,  to  resort  to  com- 
pulsory means  to  obtain  her  acknowledged,  well  established  and  just 
due.  She  has  furnished,  under  the  volunteer  system,  in  the  present 
fierce  and  bloody  war  which  traitors  have  so  atrociously  precipitated 
upon  the  country,  an  excess  of  over  forty  thousand  men  more  than  her 
just  proportion,  to  uphold  the  Union  and  vindicate  the  National  Flag 
and  honor,  and  deserves  well  of  the  General  Government  No  other 
state  has  furnished  so  great  an  excess  ;  still  she  asks  nothing  for  her. 
prompt  and  generous  contributions  to  patriotism — nothing  more  than  to 
be  placed  upon  an  equal  footing  with  other  states  which  have  received 
the  full  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  arising  from  the  sales  of  the 
public  lands  within  their  respective  limits.  To  withhold  from  her  this 
equality,  would  discriminate  to  her  wrong  and  injury.  You  will  not 
deny  her  justice  from  motives  of  delicacy  because  you  are  her  honored 
citizen.  If  she  obtains  it  she  will  be  entirely  indebted  to  you  for  it. 

-  The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  resolution  and  memorial  adopted  by 
both  houses  of  the  General  Assembly,  and  duly  authenticated  tran- 
scripts of  which  I  laid  befor  the  President : 

Resolved,  That  the  following  memorial  be  sanctioned  and  confirmed 
by  this  Senate,  and  that  each  member  sign  the  same,  and  present  it  to 
the  Hon.  I.  N.  Morris,  requesting  him  to  present  the  same  in  person  to 
the  President  of  the  United  States  : 

Memorial  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  asking  for  the  payment  to  the  State  of  the 
two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public 
lands,  and  due  to  said  State  for  road  purposes. 

Your  memorialists,  members  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Represen- 
tatives of  the  State  of  Illinois,  earnestly,  but  firmly  and  respectfully 
request  your  excellency  to  carry  into  effect  the  laws  requiring  the  pay- 
ment of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  proceeds  of  the  sales 
of  public  lands  in  the  State  since  January  1st,  1819,  and  to  which  the 
State  is  legally  and  equitably  entitled  for  road  purposes.  The  argument 
in  favor  of  the  right  of  the  State  has  already  been  made  by  her  agent, 
I.  N.  Morris,  appointed  by  Governor  Yates  to  establish  and  urge  the 


40 

payment  of  the  demand,  so  that  your  memorialists  do  not  deem  it  requi- 
site to  repeat  upon  the  subject  what  has  already  been  said,  especially 
as  your  excellency  has  admitted  the  justice  and  legality  of  the  Stale's 
claim. 

The  simple  question  remaining  undisposed  of  is,  will  your  adminis- 
tration pay  the  amount  which  you  admit  is  due?  We  submit  that  no 
consideration  of  locality  or  amount,  no  question  arising  out  of  the  war, 
no  embarrassment  of  the  treasury  occasioned  by  other  demands,  can 
justify  your  subordinates  in  disregarding  the  plain  provisions  of  the 
statutes  which  confer  upon  the  State  the  right  to  the  money.  If  an 
officer  of  the  government  charged  with  the  execution  of  a  law  which  is 
mandatory  to  him,  and  for  the  passage  of  which  he  is  in  no  wise  respon- 
sible, can  refuse  to  obey  its  commands,  he  virtually  usurps  the  authority 
of  the  legislative  department. 

Your  memorialists  do  not  believe,  nor  do  they  charge  that  your  admin- 
istration willfully  designs  to  do  our  State  a  wrong,  yet  the  fact  is  not  to 
be  disguised,  that,  unless  the  sum  claimed,  and  which  you  admit  to  be 
due,  is  paid,  a  great  and  irreparable  injury  will  be  inflicted  on  Illinois. 

We  are  fully  sensible  that  justice  to  her  has  long  been  delayed,  and 
now  with  the  utmost  confidence  appeal  to  you,  not  as  her  citizen,  but  as 
President  of  the  United  States,  to  perform  a  public  duty,  alike  demanded 
by  respect  for  the  legislative  department  and  justice  to  a  sovereign  and 
loyal  State,  with  the  fullest  confidence  and  assurance  that  this  appeal 
will  be  respectfully  considered  and  the  amount  paid. 

Illinois  has  stood  nobly  by  the  Union  in  its  present  struggle,  freely  ex- 
pending her  treasure  and  her  blood  in  its  defense,  and  at  least  deserves 
justice  from  the  general  government.  We  ask  for  her  nothing  more, 
and  believe  you  will  cheerfully  grant  her  this  much. 

JUDGE  TREAT'S  LETTER. 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILLS.,  May  19,  1863. 

DEAR  SIR — I  have  received  and  read  your  report  to  Gov.  Yates,  rel- 
ative to  the  claim  of  the  State  against  the  United  States  to  the  two  per 
cent,  fund,  arising  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands. 

From  the  examination  I  have  been  able  to  give  the  subject,  it  strikes 
me  that  your  conclusions  are  right,  and  that  the  claim  is  just.  The  claim 
is  undoubtedly  a  valid  one  against  the  general  government,  unless  it  has 
disbursed  this  fund  in  the  mode  prescribed  in  the  act  admitting  Illinois 
into  the  Union.  It  seems  clear  to  my  mind,  that  the  act  of  March  3d, 
1857,  is  broad  enough  to  require  an  adjustment  of  the  claim,  without 
any  further  legislation  by  Congress. 

Yery  truly  yours, 

S.  H.  TREAT. 
HON.  I.  K.  MORRIS,  Quincy,  III. 

JUDGE    DAVIS'    LETTER. 

SPRINGFIELD,  ILL.,  June  18,  1863. 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Quincy,  111.  : 

MY  DEAR  SIR — I  have  examined  your  report  to  Governor  Yates,  and 
cordially  indorse  the  views  of  Judge  Treat. 


41 

The  claim  against  the  general  government  (from  the  examination  I 
have  given  it,)  is  valid.  If  so,  there  can  be  no  just  reason  why  the 
State  should  not  receive  it. 

Most  truly  yours, 

DAYID  DAVIS. 

JUDGE  DRUMMOND'S  LETTER. 

CHICAGO,  ILL.,  August  5,  1863. 

DEAR  SIR — I  have  not  been  able  to  examine  as  thoroughly  as  I  could 
wish  the  report  you  sent  me  and  the  various  laws  there  referred  to,  but 
from  the  examination  I  have  given  them,  the  conviction  naturally  arises 
that  the  State  has  a  just  claim  to  the  fund  mentioned.  As  I  understand, 
the  law  of  1857  was  first  introduced  with  particular  reference  to  the 
State  of  Mississippi.  Afterward  the  second  section  was  added  by  way 
of  amendment,  and  the  title  of  the  bill  changed  so  as  to  make  the  law 
general.  It  certainly  includes  within  its  scope  and  meaning  the  State 
of  Illinois,  and  it  was  intended  to  include  it,  because  Illinois  was  in  the 
same  legal  condition  as  Alabama  and  Mississippi  in  respect  to  the  sub- 
ject matter  of  the  bill,  and  a  discrimination  against  Illinois  would  have 
been  unjust.  Then  the  language  of  the  law  is  imperative  to  the  com- 
missioner, "shall  state  on  account,  and  sJiall  allow  and  pay  * 
such  amount  as  shall  thus  be  found  due." 

In  the  limited  time  that  I  hare  had  to  look  into  the  question,  I  have 
considered  some  of  the  objections  made  to  the  claim,  and  certainly  they 
do  not  appear  to  have  much  force,  and  one  feels  the  more  confirmed  in 
the  impression  which,  I  think,  must  be  made  upon  every  mind  on  a  cur- 
sory investigation  of  the  subject. 

6f  course  I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  expressing  a  deliberate 
opinion,  but  only  as  saying  that  the  arguments  in  support  of  the  claim 
•seem  to  have  very  great  force,  and  no  satisfactory  answer  has  occurred 
to  me  with  which  to  meet  them. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  &c., 

THOMAS  DKUMMOND. 

HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Quincy,  111. 

JUDGES  WALKER   AND  CATON's   LETTERS. 

RUSHVTLLE,  ILL.,  June  22, 1863. 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS  : 

SIR — After  a  careful  examination  of  your  report  to  his  excellency,  Gc~ 
verner  Yates,  in  reference  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  on  the  sale 
of  public  lands,  claimed  to  be  due  to  the  State,  I  fully  concur  in  your 
reasoning  and  conclusion.  I  regard  the  claim  as  just,  and  have  no  doubt 
it  should  be  paid  without  further  legislation.  The  act  of  the  3d  of 
March,  1857,  it  seems  to  me  is  ample  in  its  provisions,  not  only  autho- 
rizing, but  requiring  its  payment. 

1  am,  sir,  with  respect,  yours,  &c., 

P.  H.  WALKER. 

I  fully  concur  in  the  above  opinion  expressed  by  MF.  Justice  Walker. 

J.  D.  CATON,  Chief  Justice. 


42 

The  letter  signed  by  the  state  officers,  to  which  was  added  the  highly 
respectable  and  influential  name  of  Hon.  "William  Butler,  late  State 
Treasurer,  was  sealed  up  and  directed  to  the  President,  so  that  I  was 
not  able  to  obtain  a  copy  of  it,  though  I  saw  it  after  it  had  been  pre- 
pared in  Springfield,  and  knew  its  contents.  It  was  signed  by  Auditor 
Dubois,  Secretary  Hatch,  Treasurer  Starne,  and  Mr.  Butler,  and  was  an 
appeal  to  the  President  to  execute  the  laws  and  pay  to  the  State  the 
money  claimed  to  be  due. 

After  submitting  the  memorials  and  accompanying  documents  to  the 
President,  I  waited  a  reasonable  time  and  then  called  upon  him  to  learn 
his  conclusion.  Upon  sending  him  my  card,  he  indorsed  thereon  the 
following  words,  and  returned  it  to  me  : 

"  I  sent  your  case  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  yesterday,  and  have  v 
not  yet  heard  of  it. 

A.  LINCOLN. 

August,  24, 1863." 

The  foregoing  led  to  the  following  brief  correspondence. 
To  PRESIDENT  LINCOLN: 

I  hardly  know  how  I  am  to  understand  your  note.  Must  I  infer  from 
it  that  I  am  referred  to  the  Interior  department,  or  must  I  wait  upon 
your  excellency  until  you  hear  from  the  department  ?  "When  may  I  ex- 
pect a  definite  answer? 

Very  respectfully, 

Aug.  25,  1863.  I.  N.  MORRIS. 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION,  WASHINGTON,  Aug.  26,  1863. 
HON.  I.  N.  MOKRIS  : 

DEAR  SIR — Your  note,  asking  what  you  were  to  understand,  was  re- 
ceived yesterday.  Monday  morning,  I  sent  the  papers  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  with  the  endorsement  that  my  impression  of  the  law 
was  not  changed,  and  that  I  desired  him  to  take  up  the  case  and  do  his 
duty  according  to  his  view  of  the  law.  Yesterday  I  said  the  same  thing 
to  him  verbally. 

Now,  my  understanding  is,  that  the  law  has  not  assigned  me,  specifi- 
cally, any  duty  in  the  case,  but  has  assigned  it  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior.  It  may  be  my  general  duty  to  direct  him  to  act — which  I 
have  performed.  "When  he  shall  have  acted,  if  his  action  is  not  satis- 
factory, there  may,  or  may  not,  be  an  appeal  to  ine.  It  is  a  point  I 
have  not  examined,  but  if  it  then  be  shown  that  the  law  gives  such  ap- 
peal, I  shall  not  hesitate  to  entertain  it  when  presented. 

Yours  truly, 

A.  LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON,  August  26,  1863. 
To  His  EXCELLENCY,  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 

President  of  the  United  States: 

DEAR  SIR  —  Your  letter  of  this  date  has  just  been  placed  in  my 
hands  by  your  private  secretary.  It  is  all  I  expected  you  now  to  say — 
full,  complete  and  just  in  its  spirit  and  sentiment.  In  behalf  of  Illinois 
I  return  you  her  grateful  thanks  for  it. 


43 

With  distinguished  consideration  and  respect,  I  remain  your  obedient 
servant,  I.  N.  MORRIS. 

Thus  matters  stood  awaiting  the  decision  of  the  appeal  in  the  Interior 
Department.  While  the  case  was  still  pending  there,  I  discovered  that 
our  State  had  a  small  amount  of  Indian  reserved  land  within  her  limits, 
upon  which  no  part  of  the  live  per  cent,  had  been  paid,  and  I  commenced 
the  prosecution  of  a  claim  for  the  per  cent,  on  that  also.  The  result  of 
m y  labors  in  that  regard  will  be  found  in  detail  in  the  conclusion  of  my 
report. 

At  last,  after  more  than  six  months  of  constant  urging,  the  Interior 
Department  rendered  its  opinion  in  obedience  to  the  mandate  of  the 
President,  and  here  it  is : 

OPINION  OF  THE  ASSISTANT  SECRETARY  OF  THE  INTERIOR  IN  THE  MATTER  OF 

THE  CLAIM  OF   ILLINOIS. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR,  August  31,  1863. 

SIR  —  I  herewith  return  the  papers  accompanying  your  report  upon 
the  appeal  prosecuted  by  the  Hon.  Isaac  N.  Morris,  attorney  for  the 
State  of  Illinois,  from  your  decision,  disallowing  the  claim  of  that  State 
to  two  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  public  lands  therein  situate, 
sold  since  January  1,  1819. 

I  approve  and  affirm  your  decision. 

I  transmit  you  several  communications  that  have  been  filed  in  this 
department  during  the  pending  of  the  appeal,  and  a  copy  of  a  printed 
report  made  by  Mr.  Morris  to  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  referred  to  this  department  a 
communication,  addressed  to  him  by  Mr.  Morris,  inclosing  the  memorial 
of  both  branches  of  the  General  Assembly  of  Illinois,  and  sundry  opin- 
ions in  favor  of  her  claim  upon  the  case  stated  by  Mr.  Morris. 

These  opinions  emanate  from  several  distinguished  jurists  of  that 
State,  embracing  some  of  the  most  honored  judicial  names  in  the  Union. 

The  signal  ability  evinced  by  Mr.  Morris  in  the  prosecution  of  the 
claim,  the  large  amount  which  it  involves,  the  high  respect  due  to  the 
eminently  loyal  State  which  prefers  it,  and  the  imposing  array  of 
authority  enlisted  in  its  support,  render  it  peculiarly  proper  that  I  should 
state  fully  the  reasons  which  have  led  me  to  a  conclusion  adverse  to  its 
validity. 

The  asserted  right  of  Illinois  to  the  fund  in  question,  is  derived  from 
certain  acts  of  Congress,  which,  it  is  alleged,  authorize  the  payment  to 
her  of  the  two  per  cent,  reserved,  to  be  disbursed  under  the  direction 
of  Congress,  as  provided  in  the  3d  clause  of  the  6th  section  of  the  act 
of  Congress  of  April  18, 1818,  entitled  "An  act  to  enable  the  people  of 
Illinois  Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,"  etc. 
(Statutes  at  large,  volume  3,  page  428.)  The  clause  is  in  the  following 
words : 

"Third.     That  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lyrng- 
within  such  State,  and  which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress,  from  and  after 
the  first  day  of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  nineteen,  after 
deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  reserved  for  the 


44 

purposes  following,  viz :  two-fifths  to  be  disbursed,  under  the  direction 
of  Congress,  in  making  roads  leading  to  the  State,  the  residue  to  be 
appropriated  by  the  Legislature  of  the  State,  for  the  encouragement  of 
learning,  of  which  one-sixth  part  shall  be  exclusively  bestowed  on  a 
college  or  university." 

This  proposition  was,  with  others  offered  to  the  convention  ot  the 
Territory  of  Illinois  for  their  free  acceptance  or  rejection,  and,  if  accep- 
ted by  the  convention,  was  to  be  obligatory  upon  the  United  States  and 
said  State. 

The  proposition  was  accepted,  and  the  State  of  Illinois  was,  by  reso- 
lution, approved  December  3,  1818,  declared  to  be  one  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  etc.,  etc.  (Statutes  at  large,  volume  3d,  page  536.) 

By  an  act  approved  December  12, 1820,  (Statutes  at  large,  volume  3d, 
page  610,)  Congress  provided  for  the  payment,  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  to  the  authorized  agent  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  three  per  cent, 
of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  of  the  United  States  lying  within  that 
State,  which,  since  the  first  day  of  January,  1819,  had  been  or  should 
thereafter  be  sold  by  the  United  States,  to  be  applied  to  the  encourage- 
ment of  learning  in  conformity  with  the  preceding  clause. 

The  provision  of  the  act  requiring  an  annual  account  of  the  applica- 
tion of  the  money  to  be  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
and  directing  the  payment  of  the  sums  then  due,  to  be  withheld,  in 
default  of  such  return  being  made,  was  repealed  by  the  act  approved 
January  13,  1831.  (Statutes  at  large,  volume  4,  page  430.) 

The  fidelity  with  which  the  general  government  has  performed  the 
stipulation  in  regard  to  the  payment  of  the  three  per  cent.,  has  not  been 
drawn  in  question.  The  State  of  Illinois  has  received  on  that  account 
$711,1T9  54. 

The  phraseology  of  the  clause  is  too  clear  to  allow  much  room  for 
construction.  In  terms  as  apt  and  imperative  as  those  providing  for  the 
appropriation,  by  the  State,  of  the  three-fifths  of  the  five  per  cent,  of 
the  net  proceeds,  Congress  reserved  the  direction  of  the  disbursement 
of  the  remaining  two-fifths,  in  making  roads  leading  to-  the  State. 

By  an  act  approved  May  15, 1820,  Congress  provided  for  the  appoint- 
ment, by  the  President,  of  the  commissioners  to  lay  out  a  road  between 
Wheeling,  in  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  a  point  on  the  left  bank  of  the 
Mississippi  river,  to  be  chosen  by  the  commissioners  between  St.  Louis  « 
and  the  mouth  of  the  Illinois  river,  and  appropriated  ten  thousand 
dollars  to  defray  the  incidental  expenses.  By  a  proviso,  annexed  to  the 
second  section,  it  was  declared  that  nothing  in  the  act,  or  that  should  be 
done  in  pursuance  thereof,  should  be  deemed  or  construed  to  imply 
any  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  make  or  defray  the 
expenses  of  making'  the  road  thereby  authorized  to  be  laid  out,  or  any 
part  thereof.  (Statutes  at  large,  volume  3,  page  604.) 

The  preceding  legislation  of  Congress,  making  appropriations  for  the 
construction  of  a  road  from  Cumberland  to  Wheeling,  expressly  provi- 
ded that  they  should  be  chargeable  upon  and  reimbursable  at  the  treas- 
ury, out  of  the  fund  reserved  in  the  enabling  act,  under  which  Ohio 
was  admitted  into  the  Union. 

By  the  act  of  March  3,  1825,  (Statutes  at  large,  volume  4,  page  128,) 
the  sum  of  $150,000  was  appropriated  for  constructing  a  portion  of  this 


45 

road,  "which  said  sum  (it  is  therein  stipulated)  shall  be  replaced  out  of 
the  fund  reserved  for  laying  out  and  making  roads,  under  the  direction 
of  Congress,  by  the  several  acts  passed  for  the  admission  of  the  states 
of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois  and  Missouri  into  the  Union,  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states." 

Additional  appropriations,  amounting  to  one  million,  one  hundred 
and  thirty  thousand  dollars,  (1,130,000,)  chargeable  upon  the  same  fund, 
were  made  by  subsequent  acts  of  the  following  dates : 

March  3,  1825,  March  25,  1826;  March  2,  1827;  March  2,  1829; 
May  31,  1830 ;  July  2, 1836 ;  U.  S.  Statutes,  volume  4,  pages  128, 151, 
215,  352,  427,  volume  5,  page  71.) 

Other  acts  of  Congress,  bearing  dates  respectively,  March  2,  1831 ; 
June,  24,  1834 ;  March  3,  1835  ;  March  3,  1837 ;  May  25,  1838  ;  (U.  S. 
Statute,  volume  4,  pages  469,  680,  772,  volume  5,  pages  195,  228,) 
appropriate  the  further  sum  of  one  million,  eight  hundred  and  thirty- 
four  thousand,  nine  hundred  and  fifteen  dollars  and  eighty-five  cents, 
($1,834,915  85,)  and  make  it  chargeable  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of 
Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  specify  the  amount  that  shall  be  expen- 
ded in  each  of  those  states. 

The  aggi  egate  amount  thereby  appropriated  for  the  road  within  the 
State  of  Illinois,  appears  to  be  $606,000,  and  it  is  a  conceded  fact  that 
the  total  expenditure  within  the  three  states  of  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illi- 
nois, largely  exceed  the  reserved  two  per  cent,  fund  of  those  states  and 
Missouri. 

Mr.  Morris  remarks  that  the  claim  of  Illinois  "  may  be  put  down 
safely  in  round  numbers  at  four  hundred  and  seventy-four  thousand 
dollars,  ($474,000.)  A  larger  sum  has  been  appropriated  for  the  con- 
struction of  the  National  Eoad  within  her  limits,  and  her  fund  is 
chargeable  with  her  just  proportion  of  the  one  million,  two  hundred 
and  eighty  thousand  dollars,  ($1,280,000,)  appropriated  by  the  acts  first 
above  referred  to. 

It  thus  appears  that  the  general  government  has  discharged  its  obli- 
gations in  regard  to  the  expenditure  of  the  fund.  No  part  of  it  remains 
in  the  treasury,  nor  has  one  dollar  of  it  been  diverted  from  the  object 
for  which  it  was  reserved. 

After  the  fund,  specifically  applicable  to  the  construction  of  the 
National  Road,  had  been  exhausted,  and  no  further  appropriations  were 
made  for  that  purpose,  Congress,  on  the  ninth  of  May,  1856,  (Statutes  at 
large,  volume  11,  page  7,)  provided  that: 

"  So  much  of  the  Cumberland  Road  as  lies  within  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, and  all  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  in  the  same,  together 
with  all  the  etone,  timber  and  other  materials  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  and  procured  for  the  purpose  of  being  used  in  the  construction 
of  the  same,  and  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  every  kind  belonging 
to  the  United  States  as  connected  with  said  road  in  said  State,  be  and 
the  same  are  hereby  transferred,  and  surrendered  to  the  said  State  of 
Illinois." 

No  act  is  cited  by  Mr.  Morris,  whereby  Congress  has  in  express  terms 
relinquished  its  control  over  the  fund  or  authorized  its  payment  to  the 
State  of  Illinois.  He  states  that  the  laws,  upon  whien  he  bases  the 
claim  of  the  State,  are  as  follows : 


46 

"An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the 
State  of  Mississippi,  and  other  states." 

"Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  etc.,  That  the  Commissioner  ol  the  General  Land 
Office,  be  and  he  is  hereby  required  to  state  an  account  between  the 
United  States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  State,  heretofore  unset- 
tled, on  account  of  the  public  lands  in  said  State,  and  upon  the  same 
principles  of  allowance  and  settlements  prescribed  in  the  "Act  to  settle 
certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama," 
approved  the  second  of  March,  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-five;  and 
that  he  is  required  to  include  in  said  account  the  said  reservations  under 
the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw  and  Chocktaw  Indians  within 
the  limits  of  Mississippi,  and  allow  and  pay  to  the  said  Slate  five  per 
centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales,  estimating  the  lands  at  the 
value  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre. 

"  SEC.  2.  And  he  it  further  enacted,  That  the  said  commissioner 
shall  also  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the 
other  states  upon  the  same  principles,  and  shall  allow  and  pay  to  each 
State  such  amount  as  shall  thus  be  found  due,  estimating  all  lands  and 
permanent  reservations  at  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre." 

APPROVED  March  3',  1857. 

"An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the 

State  of  Alabama." 

"Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America,  in  Congress  Assembled,  That  the  Commis- 
sioner of  the  General  Land  Office  be,  and  he  is  hereby  required  to  state 
an  account  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said 
State,  heretofore  unsettled,  under  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  of  March 
second,  eighteen  hundred  and  nineteen,  for  the  admission  of  Alabama 
into  the  Union ;  and  that  he  be  required  to  include  in  said  account  the 
several  reservations  under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw, 
Chocktaw,  and  Creek  Indians  within  the  limits  of  Alabama,  and  allow 
and  pay  to  the  said  State  five  per  centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other 
sales." 

APPROVED  March  2,  1855. 

The  provision  touching  the  two  per  cent,  fund  is  the  same  in  the 
enabling  acts  of  Illinois,  Alabama  and  Mississippi. 

Mr.  Morris  contends  that  Alabama  and  Mississippi  received  t^e  two 
per  cent,  fund  by  virtue  of  the  above  acts,  and  that  the  second  section 
of  the  act  of  1857,  makes  the  provisions  of  the  preceding  section  general, 
and  consequently  being  applicable  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  justifies  the 
claim  in  question. 

The  argument  therefore  is  grounded  upon  an  assumed  fact,  and  I 
may  concede  that  a  casual  examination  of  those  acts,  without  regard  to 
pre-existing  legislation,  and  the  peculiar  circumstances  which  led  to 
their  passage  would  apparently  sanction  Mr.  Morris'  conclusion.  The 
assumption  of  the  fact  is,  however,  gratuitous  and  untenable. 


47 

Congress  relinquished  the  two  per  cent,  to  the  states  of  Alabama  and 
Mississippi  by  the  16th  and  17th  sections  of  the  act,  approved  Septem- 
ber 4,  1841.  (Satutes  at  large,  volume  5,  page  453.) 

The  effective  granting  words  of  both  sections  are  identical.  Section 
16  is  as  follows: 

"  And  lie  it  further  enacted.  That  the  two  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds 
of  the  lands  sold,  or  that  may  hereafter  be  sold  by  the  United  States  !n 
the  State  of  Mississippi,  since  the  first  of  December,  1817,  *  *  * 
reserved  for  the  making  of  a  road  or  roads  leading  to  said  State,  be  and 
the  same  is  hereby  relinquished  to  the  State  of  Mississippi,  payable  in 
two  equal  installments,"  etc. 

The  two  per  cent,  which  has  accrued  from  the  proceeds  of  the  lands 
sold  in  those  states,  was  paid  to  them  respectively  in  two  installments, 
and  the  fund  thereafter  accruing  has  been  paid  quarterly  in  conformity 
to  the  requirements  of  that  act.  No  additional  legislation  was  therefore 
necessary  to  secure  effectually  to  those  states  the  five  per  cent,  arising 
from  the  sales  of  lands  within  their  limits.  Their  title  to  it  since  the 
act  of  1841  has  never  been  questioned. 

After  the  payment  of  the  three  per  cent.,  under  act  of  May  3,  1822, 
(Statutes  at  large,  volume  3,  page  674,)  and  of  the  two  per  cent,  under 
the  act  ol  1841,  those  states  made  a  claim  upon  the  general  government 
for  the  payment  of  five  per  cent,  upon  the  estimated  value  of  certain 
tracts  of  land  lying  within  their  respective  limits,  which,  by  virtue  of 
treaties  with  the  Chickasaws,  Chocktaws  and  Creeks,  had  been  appro- 
>  priated  as  Indian  reservations. 

It  is  well  known  that  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  enabling  acts 
of  1817  and  1819,  several  millions  of  acres  within  those  states  were  in 
the  occupancy  of  Indian  tribes,  and  when  the  possessory  rights  of  those 
tribes  were  extinguished  by  treaty,  reservations,  embracing  large  quan- 
tities of  land,  were  set  apart  for  the  benefit  of  members  of  the  tribe, 
and  as  their  individual  property.. 

It  was  insisted  that  the  grant  or  confirmation  of  these  reservations 
should  in  the  account  between  the  general  government  and  those  states 
be  considered  as  a  sale,  but  the  then  secretary,  Mr.  Stewart,  rejected 
the  claim  by  a  decison  bearing  date  February  17,  1852.  It  appeared 
that  the  acts  authorized  only  payment  to  be  made  of  five  per  cent,  on 
the  net  proceeds  of  sales,  and  furthermore,  there  was  no  act  of  Congress 
determining  the  value  of  the  lands  reserved.  Mr.  Stewart  held  that 
the  department  has  no  power  to  state  an  account  or  make  an  allowance. 
Congress  granted  relief  by  the  acts  ot  1855  and  1857. 

By  the  act  of  1855  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  was 
directed  to  include  in  the  account  of  Alabama,  "the  several  reservations 
under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw,  Chocktaw  and  Creek 
Indians  within  the  limits  of  Alabama,  and  allow  and  pay  to  the  said 
State  five  per  centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales. 

Mississippi  was  largely  interested  and  equally  entitled  to  legislative 
relief,  and  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1857,  granted  to  her  the  same 
benefits  which  Alabama  had  received  by  the  act  of  1855. 

A  material  omission  in  the  act  of  1855  was  also  supplied  and  the 
commissioner  was  required  to  estimate  the  lands  included  in  the  reser- 
vation "at  the  value  of  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre." 


48 

Now,  in  view  of  the  inducements  that  led  to  the  passage  of  these 
laws  and  the  objects  they  were  intended  to  accomplish,  I  submit  that 
but  one  construction  can  be  given  them.  They  plainly  require  that  in 
ascertaining  the  amount  of  five  per  cent,  due  to  those  states  by  virtue 
of  existing  laws,  the  reservation  under  treaties  should  be  included  in 
the  account,  and  that  the  land  covered  by  them  should  be  estimated  at 
$1  25  per  acre. 

The  second  section  requires  that  the  commissioner  should  state  an 
account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the  other  states  upon 
the  same  principle. 

Upon  what  principle  ?  The  obvious  answer  is  the  principle  that  the 
land,  reserved  under  Indian  treaties,  should  be  regarded  as  so  much  land 
sold  by  the  United  States,  and  should  be  estimated  at  $1  25  per  acre. 

I  am  unable  to  perceive  that  the  claim,  which  Mr.  Morris  represents, 
has  any  foundation  in  the  letter  of  these  acts,  or  in  their  spirit,  meaning 
or  intention.  Mr.  Morris  is  of  opinion  that  the  decision  of  a  former 
Secretary  of  the  Interior  favors  his  construction  of  the  act  of  March 
3, 1857. 

The  point  involved  in  the  appeal  from  your  office  and  submitted  to 
the  determination  of  secretary  Thompson  was — whether  lands  located 
within  the  State  of  Mississippi,  to  satisfy  certain  Chocktaw  scrip  issued 
under  the  acts  of  Congress  of  August  23,  1842,  and  August  3,  1846, 
were  within  the  beneficial  provisions  of  the  act  of  1857. 

He  decided  that  such  lands,  in  adjusting  the  accounts  of  that  State, 
"  are  to  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  portion  of  the  several  reservations 
under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chocktaw  and  Chickasaw  Indians." 

The  same  principle  of  adjustment,  the  second  section  of  the  act  now 
under  discussion  extends,  to  be  applied  in  the  settlement  of  the  five  per 
cent,  account  of  other  states. 

The  meaning  of  this,  taken  in  connection  with  the  case  there  pre- 
sented, evidently  is,  that  the  same  relief  should  be  extended  to  other 
states,  as  by  the  first  section,  had  been  extended  to  Mississippi.  And 
what  was  that?  That  lands  disposed  of  to  satisfy  treaty  stipulations 
with  certain  Indian  tribes,  should  be  considered,  in  adjusting  the  account 
of  the  State  within  which  the  lands  are  situated,  as  if  such  lands  had 
been  sold  by  the  United  States  at  their  minimum  value. 

It  is  truly  said  in  argument  by  Mr.  Morris,  that  the  two  per  cent,  has 
been  paid  to  Missouri,  and  he  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  reasons 
which  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  Missouri  was  entitled  to  it,  support 
with  equal  force  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  There  is  this  essen- 
tial difference  between  the  two  cases.  The  payment  to  Missouri  was 
made  in  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  an  act  approved  February  28, 
1859.  (Statutes  at  large,  volume  11,  page  388.) 

That  act  is  as  follows : 

"  Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  etc.,  That  the  assent  of  Congress  be,  and  the  same 
is  hereby  given  to  the  act  of  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Missouri, 
entitled  "  An  act  supplemental  to  an  act  to  amend  an  act  to  secure  the 
completion  of  certain  railroads  in  this  State,  and  for  other  purposes," 
approved  on  the  nineteenth  day  of  November,  eighteen  hundred  and 
fifty  seven,  appropriating  the  two  per  centum  of  the  net  proceeds  of 
sale  of  public  lands  in  said  State,  reserved  by  existing  laws  to  be 


expended  under  the  direction  of  Congress,  but  hereby  relinquished  to 
that  State;  and  that  the  proper  accounting  officers  of  the  government 
are  hereby  authorized  ahd  required  to  audit  and  pay  the  accounts  for1 
the  same,  as  in  the  case  of  the  three  per  centum  land  fund  of  said 
State." 

This  act  is  subsequent  in  date  to  those  relied  upon  by  Illinois  in  the 
assertion  of  her  claim,  and  which  are  equally  applicable,  according  to 
the  interpretation  of  them  insisted  upon,  lo  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Mis- 
souri. 

The  fact  that  the  latter  State  found  it  necessary  to  recur  to  a  special 
law  implied  that  equivalent  legislation  is  requisite  in  favor  of  Illinois 
to  .sanction  a  like  payment  to  her. 

The  statement  is  made  that  Alabama,  Arkansas,  California,  Iowa, 
Kansas,  Louisiana,  Wisconsin,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  Oregon,  Michigan 
and  Minnesota  have  received  five  per  cent,  and  it  is  asked  why  should 
Illinois  "  be  unjustly  discriminated  against." 

I  have  already  cited  the  acts  of  Congress  authorising  and  requiring 
the  payment  to  Alabama,  Mississippi  and  Missouri,  and  similar  legisla- 
tive provisions  have  been  made  for  a  like  pa_yment  to  the  above  named 
States,  with  the  exception  of  California,  which  Mr.  Morris  has  inadver- 
tently included  in  the  list. 

For  convenience,  I  subjoin  a  reference  to  the  acts  : 

Arkansas,  by  act  23d  June,  1836,  vol.  5,  page  58 ;  to  Iowa,  by  act  3d 
March,  1845,  vol.  5,  page  7S9;  to  Kansas,  by  act  of  May  4th,  1858,  vol. 
11,  page  269 ;  Louisiana  to  the  act  20th  Feb.  1811,  vol.  2,  page  641 ;  to 
Michigan,  23d  June,  1836,  vol.  5,  page  60;  to  Minnesota,  by  act  26th 
Feb.,  1857,  vol.  11,  page  167;  to  Wisconsin,  by  act  3d  March,  1847, 
vol.  9,  page  178 ;  Oregon,  by  act  Feb.  14th,  1859,  vol.  page  384. 

Some  general  views  ace  presented  by  Mr.  Morris  in  favor  of  the  claim 
of  Illinois?  As  they  do  not  relate  to  the  authority  of  the  executive 
branch  of  the  government  to  make  the  payment  under  existing  legisla- 
tion, I  shall  refrain  from  discussing  them.  They  may,  with  great  pro- 
priety, be  submitted  for  consideration  by  Congress.  That  body  will, 
undoubtedly,  adopt  such  measure  of  relief  as.  in  its  opinion,  justice  and' 
sound  policy  may  require. 

You  will  be  pleased  to  furnish  a  copy  of  this  opinion  ta  Mr.  Morris, 
and  to  His  Excellency,  the  Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 
I  ana,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  T.  OTTO, 

Acting  Secretary. 
f  Hon.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Corner  Gen.  Land  Office. 

As  soon  as  I  was  apprised  of  the  opinion  given  in  the  Interior  De- 
partment, adverse  to  the  State,  I  tiled  therein  the  following  letter  of  ap- 
peal to  the  President : 

WASHINGTON,  August  31s/,  1863. 
HON.  JOHN  P.  USHER, 

Secretary  of  the  Interior: 

SIR — I  learned  to-day,  unofficially,  but  I  presume  correctly,  th.it  the 
claim  of  Illinois  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  due  her  for  road  purposea, 
-6 


50 

from  the  general  government,  and  which  has  been  pending  on  an  appeal 
in  your  office,  has  been  decided  adversely  to  that  State.  I,  therefore, 
pray  an  appeal  from  your  decision  to  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  ask  that  all  the  papers  properly  pertaining  to  the  cause,  be  trans- 
mitted to  that  officer,  with  the  least  possible  delay. 

Yery  respectfully, 

I.  N.  MOKPJS. 
Agent  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

A  copy  of  the  Secretary's  opinion  was  not  given  to  me  for  several 
days  after  I  heard  of  its  rendition,  and  was  followed  up  by  the  subjoined 
extraordinary  communication : 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

Washington.,  Sept.  5th,  1863. 

SIR — I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
3ibt  ult,  wherein  you  pray  an  appeal  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  from  the  decision  of  this  department,  adverse  to  the  claim  of  the 
State  of  Illinois  to  the  two  percent,  fund,  alleged  to  be  due  her,  for  road 
purposes,  from  the  general  government. 

You  ask  "that  all  the  papers  properly  pertaining  to  the  cause  be  trans- 
mitted to  that  officer  with  the  least  possible  delay." 

Not  discovering,  from  the  attention  I  have  been  able  to  bestow  upon 
the  subject,  that  an  appeal  lies  in  such  a  case  from  the  decision  of  the 
department,  I  shall  await  the  order  of  the  President  in  the  premises. 
I  am,  sir,  very  respecfully,  &c., 

W.T.  OTTO, 

Acting  Secretary. 
Hon.  ISAAC  N.  MORRIS,  Washinyton,  D.  0. 

I  had  supposed  that  the  expression  of  an  opinion  against  the  validity 
of  the  State's  claim  would  terminate  the  opposition  in  the  Interior  t)e- 
partment,  but  the  receipt  of  the  foregoing  letter  removed  the  delusion. 
Reflecting  upon  my  duty  in  the  matter,  I  prepared  the  following  reply 
which  I  did  not  transmit,  as  I  thought  it  might  prejudice  the  State's 
daim  to  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations.  I,  however,  now  em- 
brace it  in  my  report  as  an  answer  to  the  Secretary's  communication, 
arid  hope  it  may  not  be  considered  rude  or  harsh.  It  was  enough  to 
arouse  some  feeling,  to  have  a  subordinate  officer  to  attempt  to  thrust 
himself  between  the  President  and  the  State,  and  prevent  him  from 
taking  any  cognizance  of  her  rights : 

WASHINGTON,  September  12,  1863. 
Hon.  W.  T.  OTTO, 

Acting  Secretary  of  the  Interior  : 

SIR — On  the  afternoon  of  the  10th  inst.,  I  received,  through  the  city 
post-office,  your  letter  of  the  5th,  notifying  me  that  you  have  been  una- 
ble to  discover  that  an  appeal  lies  from  your  opinion  to  the  President  of 
t&Q  United  States,  in  the  matter  of  the  claim  of  Illinois  to  the  two  per 


51 

cent,  on  the  public  lands  sold  in  that  State,  and  expressing  a  disinclina- 
tion U>  send  up  the  papers. 

I  was  more  surprised  at  this,  as  a  copy  of  all  the  papers  had  already 
been  furnished  me,  except  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  appeal,  which  you 
acknowledge  to  be  on  file  in  your  office.  I  do  not,  however,  regard  the 
refusal  at  all  material,  as  in  legal  contemplation,  the  papers  are  before 
the  President  already.  Being  in  and  constituting  a  part  of  the  archives 
of  one  of  the  executive  departments,  the  mere  formal  act  of  placing  them 
in  the  President's  hands,  is  wholly  unimportant. 

I  had  supposed  that  the  President  was  to  determine  for  himself  wheth- 
he  had  a  right  to  review  the  case,  and  that  you  would  cot  attempt  to 
deny  him  this  right,  and  make  your  will  the  governing  rule  of  his 
action. 

The  power  of  the  President  to  correct  the  mistakes  and  errors  of  his 
subordinates,  and  execute  the  laws,  is  undoubted.  That  power  is  an 
attribute  of  executive  authority  which  no  inferior  executive  officer  can 
abridge  or  wrest  from  him.  But  I  will  not  discuss  this  question  with 
you,  as  its  discussion  more  properly  comes  before  the  President.  The 
fact  that  you  'await  his  orders'  for  the  papers,  would  seem  to  concede 
the  point,  that  you  recognize  his  power  to  control  the  case. 

Was  it  not  enough  for  you  to  give  an  opinion  adverse  to  my  State, 
,  without  throwing  additional  embarrassments  in  the  way  of  her  obtaining 
justice?  Why  should  you  manifest  such  a  desire  to  defeat  her  claim  t 
You  have  given  your  opinion — you  have  expended  your  power — you 
have  struck  your  blow,  and  why  try  to  do  more  ?  Why  raise  additional 
obstacles  ?  What  has  Illinois  done  that  she  should  be  resisted  on  every 
inch  of  ground,  and  have  every  possible  technical  objection  thrown  in 
her  face?  Why  should  there,  in  fact,  be  a  new  case  made  up  against 
her  in  your  office,  \vhich,  I  insist,  you  had  no  right  to  make,  instead  of 
disposing  of  her  claim  upon  the  record  sent  up?  She  has  only  respect- 
fully but  earnestly  pressed  her  demand.  She  has  only  asked  to  be 
placed  on  an  equal  footing  with  other  States,  and  why  all  this  opposi- 
tion ?  I  hope,  sir,  you  are  not  afraid  to  trust  your  opinion  to  the  search- 
ing scrutiny  of  the  President's  legal  mind  ?  1  hope  this  is  not  the  reason 
you  decline  to  send  up  the  papers. 

Illinois,  I  admit,  is  placed  in  a  position  where  she  is  compelled  to  sue 
to  power  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  rights  which  should  be  freely 
granted,  but  in  doing  this  she  stands  upon  the  conscious  rectitude  of  her 
cause  and  the  dignity  of  her  character.  She  asks  nothing  that  is  not 
right,  and  will  resist  the  infliction  of  wrong.  I  have  not  presented  her 
at  the  Interior  Department  as  a  beggar,  and  a  refusal  of  that  department 
to  "send  up  the  papers"  to  the  President  will  not  relax  her  eiforts.  She 
may  even  in  the  end,  however,  be  overthrown,  but  it  will  only  be  when 
she  has  exhausted  all  her  energies  in  pursuit  of  the  right,  and  then  she 
will  have  left  a  keen  and  abiding  recollection  of  the  wrong  done  her  by 
the  general  government.  Although  turned  away  from  the  Interior  De- 
partment she  is  not  humbled  or  intimidated,  and  kas  hope  still  left  that 
justice  will  be  meted  out  to  her. 

I  should  have  sent  you  this  reply  on  the  day  I  received  your  letter, 
but  I  thought  it  best  to  wait  until  the  claim  of  my  State  for  five  per  cent, 
on  Indian  reservations  was  disposed  of  in  your  department. 


52 

Assuring  you  I  have  no  other  feeling  in  this  matter  other  than  that 
which  springs  from  a  desire  to  faithfully  serve  my  State,  which  has 
intrusted  me  with  her  confidence,  and  which,  I  think,  has  been  harshly 
dealt  by,  I  remain, 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

I.  N.  MOKRIS. 

On  the  same  day  I  prepared  my  response  to  the  Secretary,  I  addressed 
the  President  a  note,  and  am  happy  to  say  that  His  Excellency  never 
gave  me  at  any  time  an  intimation  that  the  act  of  the  Secretary  in  "de- 
clining to  send  up  the  papers"  would  embarrass  his  action  or  make  the 
slightest  difference  therein.  He  entertained  and  heard  the  appeal  fully 
and  respectfully,  and  promised  a  decision  thereon,  notwithstanding  the 
papers  were  not  "sent  up." 

^ 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  Sept.  IZth,  1863. 
His  Excellency,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States  : 

SIR — In  your  letter  to  me  under  date  of  the  26th  ult,  you  say,  in 
referring  to  the  business  of  Illinois,  then  pending  before  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  "When  he  shall  have  acted,  if  his  action  is  not  satisfac- 
tory, there  may  or  may  not,  be  an  appeal  to  rne.  It  is  a  point  I  have 
not  considered ;  but  if  then  it  be  shown  that  the  law  gives  such  an 
appeal,  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  entertain  it  when  presented."  1  could  not 
ask,  as  the  agent  of  the  State,  any  fairer  proposition. 

The  action  of  the  Interior  Secretary  not  being  satisfactory,  I  am  now 
ready  to  make  the  showing  you  refer  to.  I  havey/also,  some  general 
views  to  present,  which,  I  am  sure  you  will  not  be  averse  to  hearing,  as 
you  cannot  but  feel  an  interest  in  all  that  pertains  to  Illinois.  I  desire 
an  audience  in  her  behalf;  and,  if  after  I  shall  have  presented  the  facts, 
you  should  think  she  has  no  rights,  which  you  have  power  to  enforce,  so 
let  it  be.  Your  obliged  and  humble  servant, 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 

PRESIDENT'S  ANSWER. 

EXECUTIVE  MANSION, 

Washington,  Sept,  18, 1863. 
Hon.  I.  N.  Morris  : 

SIR — Please  carefully  put  the  argument  in  writing,  with  reference  to 
authorities,  in  the  matter  intended  to  show  that  the  law  gives  an  appeal 
to  me  in  the  matter  referred  to.  When  that  is  ready  to  be  presented, 
I  will  try  to  give  you  the  personal  interview  about  Illinois  matters  gen- 
erally. Yours  truly,  A.  LINCOLN. 

KEPLY. 

WASHINGTON,  Sept.  21stf,  1863. 

To  His  Excellency,  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States : 
SIR — Your  note  bearing  date  the  18th  inst,  was  received.     The  argu- 
ment you  desire,  with  reference  to  authorities,  is  ready  to  be  submitted, 


53 

and  as  you  promised  me,  when  it  -was  ready,  an  interview  ia  regard  to 
Illinois  matters  generally,  Mr.  Johnson  and  myself  propose  to  meet  you 
on  Wednesday  next  at  twelve  o'clock.  Will  that  time  suit  your  con- 
venience ?  I  wish  to  consult  that. 

Yours  very  truly, 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 

At  twelve  o'clock  on  Wednesday,  the  President  received  Mr.  Johnson 
and  myself,  when  I  made  before  him  the  following  argument,  and  Mr. 
Johnson  submitted  his  opinion.  Upon  that  argument  and  opinion  the 
case  is  still  held  under  advisement  by  His  Excellency : 

ARGUMENT  OF  MR.  MORRIS  IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE  STATED  CLAIM,  AND  IN 
REVIEW  OF  THE  OPINION  RENDERED  AGAINST  ITS  VALIDITY  IN  THK  INTK- 
RIOR  DEPARTMENT. 

MR.  PRESIDENT  : — The  case  involving  the  right  of  Illinois  to  the  two 
per  cent.,  arising  from  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lande  made 
within  her  limits  since  1819,  has  been  decided  adversely  to  the  State  by 
the  Interior  Department.  The  decision  was  not  unexpected  by  me,  nor 
will  it  be  by  the  people  of  the  State.  I  would  have  been,  indeed,  but  a 
poor  interpreter  of  surrounding  circumstances,  indications  and  events, 
to  have  expected  anything  else.  I  do  not,  however,  despair  of  the  ulti- 
mate result.  The  interests  and  considerations  which  intervene  between 
my  State  and  justice,  and  which  it  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  discuss 
now,  (for  there  will  be  a  more  favorable  time  and  occasion  for  that,)  will 
not  always  prevail  against  her.  She  will  finally  obtain  her  rights.  I 
have  neither  a  fear  nor  a  doubt  of  this ;  and  believing  it,  I  would  be  an 
unfaithful  agent  if  I  failed  to  prosecute  them  to  the  extent  of  every  hon- 
orable means. 

In  the  short  address  I  made  your  Excellency  in  presenting  the  memo- 
rials of  the  State  Legislature,  I  distinctly  stated  that  "the  result  was  with 
you,  for  it  was  to  you  the  State  looked  for  the  fulfillment  of  her  too  long 
delayed  rights,"  and  added,  "she  does  not  expect  to  look  in  vain."  1, 
also,  said  in  that  address,  "you  will  not  deny  the  State  justice,  from  mo- 
tives of  delicacy,  because  you  are  her  honored  citizen — if  she  obtains  it, 
she  will  be  entirely  indebted  to  yon  for  it."  You  asked  for  a  copy  of 
that  address,  which  I  furnished,  and  accompanied  it  with  a  note,  in 
which  1  stated  that  nothing  short  of  a  positive  direction  from  you  tor  the 
settlement  of  the  account  would  effect  anything.  These  words  I  had 
duly  considered,  and  used  them  designedly,  so  there  could  be  no  misap- 
prehension of  my  views.  I  knew  very  well  before — and  I  knew  then, 
as  well  as  I  do  now,  that  the  State  had  no  hope,  except  through  your 
direct  agency,  and  the  sequel  has  verified  my  conviction. 

The  Legislature  of  the  State,  also,  knew  very  well  what  they  were 
doing  when  they  addressed  their  memorials  directly  to  you,  asking  that 
you  should  see  the  laws  carried  into  effect,  providing  for  the  payment  of 
the  money  to  the  State,  which  I  claim  for  her.  The  appeal  was  to  you. 
I  did  not  call  at  the  Interior  Department  until  after  you  had  transmitted, 
the  papers  there  with  your  indorsement,  for  I  knew  it  would  be  of  no 
avail,  and  then  only  to  urge  that  it  would  act  in  the  premises.  It  required 


no  gift  of  prophesy  to  determine  what  an  officer  would  do,  wlio  would 
arbitrarily  hold  on  to  an  appeal  for  six  months,  when,  if  he  had  a  doubt 
about  the  law  conferring  upon  the  State  the  benefits  which  I  claimed  for 
her,  he  could  have  expressed  it  in  a  single  moment,  and  would  have  done 
it  when  repeatedly  and  urgently  pressed  as  he  was. 

It  shows,  conclusively,  that  when  he  cannot  defeat  a  case  by  excuses 
and  delays — when  he  cannot  weary  out  the  patience  of  the  suitor,  and 
thus  avoid  direct  responsibility — when  prevarication  will  no  longer 
avail,  it  will  finally  fall,  when  he  is  forced  to  act  under  the  iron  heel  of 
power.  This  is  almost  invariably  the  result.  Whenever  there  is  a  want 
of  frankness  there  is  danger.  There  are  some  things  it  does  not  take 
direct  words  to  make  us  understand.  It  only  required  your  Excellency 
long  enough  to  carefully  read  over  the  laws  to  enable  you  to  express 
your  opinion. 

A  petitioner,  whether  for  himself  or  for  his  State,  has  a  veiy  unequal 
contest,  with  an  officer  who  will  shut  himself  up  in  his  room,  and  neither 
read  written  arguments,  nor  allow  personal  interviews,  unless  they  are 
literally  forced  upon  him,  and  then  will  scarcely  answer  in  a  few  brief 
words,  and  most  of  those  evasive.  I  had  supposed  that  our  government, 
in  its  republican  simplicity,  was  accessible  to  all,  or  at  least  so  designed, 
and  that  the  humblest  citizen,  as  well  as  a  sovereign  State,  was  to  be 
respectfully  heard  when  asking  to  be.  Power,  I  know,  can  turn  with 
disdain  from  the  supplications  of  justice  which  it  was  formed  to  adminis- 
ter, but  that  justice  will  eventually  triumph  in  the  full  consciousness  of 
its  own  dignity. 

I  have  not,  nor  shall  I,  present  Illinois  at  the  National  Treasury  as 
an  eleemosynary  beggar.  I  have  not,  nor  shall  I,  place  her  in(a  posi- 
tion where  she  can  be  reproached  with  having  done/anything  disreputa- 
ble. Her  honor  shall  be  preserved  if  her  wrongs  remain  unredressed 
and  her  rights  unrecognized. 

There  is  one  other  matter,  Mr.  President,  which  I  might  as  well  men- 
tion here.  I  am  aware  that  you  have  an  impression  that  it  is  not  very 
gracious  in  Illinois  to  press  her  claim  at  this  moment  of  our  national 
troubles.  You  must,  I  am  fully  satisfied,  be  convinced  the  State  has 
n&t  acted  from  any  design  to  embarrass  your  administration  or  the  gov- 
ernment. The  claim  has  been  pending  before  a  department  since  1857, 
has  never  at  any  time  been  withdrawn,  and  I  have  already  explained 
why  it  was  not  paid  under  the  administration  of  Mr.  Buchanan.  It  is 
certainly  as  proper  for  your  administration  to  adjust  it,  as  to  wait  for 
any  other  one  to  do  it.  I  know,  and  so  do  the  people  of  Illinois,  that 
die  State  having  had  a  prominent  candidate  for  the  presidency  for  fif- 
teen years,  that  it  operated  greatly  to  the  detriment  of  her  interest  in 
common  with  other  States,  and  now  that  she  has  the  President,  it  would 
be  hard,  indeed,  to  turn  her  away  for  that  reason.  In  all  that  pertains 
to  the  advancement  and  glory  of  our  federal  organization,  siie  has  as 
deep  an  interest  as  any  member  of  the  government,  and  would  be  the 
last  to  do  anything  to  destroy  or  embarrass  the  common  cause.  Her 
faith  she  has  proved  by  her  works,  which  will  remain  an  enduring  mon- 
ument to  her  patriotism  and  self-sacrificing  devotion.  It  ought  to  be  no 
reproach  upon  her  that  she  asks  from  the  United  States  the  payment  of 
a  just  demand.  Her  leading  men  believe  that  now  is  as  propitious  a 


55 

moment  for  its  payment  as  any  other.  The  amount  would  go  into  the 
general  national  indebtedness,  and  scarcely  be  felt.  But  it  is  not  the 
money  she  particularly  desires  or  cares  for  at  present.  Her  right  to  it 
she  wants  established,  and  the  claim  placed  in  snch  a  situation  that  it 
will  be  ultimately  discharged.  It  is  as  little  as  the  government  can  do 
to  acknowledge  the  debt,  if  it  is  not  in  a  condition  to  conveniently  pay  it. 
Is  this  asking  too  much  ?  Is  it  even  immodest? 

I  will  only  add  on  this  branch  of  the  subject,  that  the  distinguished, 
watchful  and  patriotic  Governor  of  my  State,  believed  he  would  not  be 
justified  in  longer  delaying  a  demand  for  the  sum  due.  Indeed,  further 
delay  might  be  construed  as  criminal  negli«:ance,  and  would  have  been, 
He  had  not,  properly,  any  discretion  in  the  matter,  but  a  plain  and  im- 
perative duty  to  perform,  which  he  has  discharged. 

In  again  calling  your  excellency's  attention  to  the  claim  of  Illinois  to 
the  two  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  public  lands  made 
within  her  limits,  I  do  not  wish  as  being  construed  as  taking  an  appeal 
from  the  opinion  which  the  honorable  Interior  Secretary  has  been  pleased 
to  express  adverse  to  the  State,  although  I  filed  a  letter  praying  such  ap- 
pea1,  to  save  the  point.  I  cannot  regard  that  opinion  as  having  any 
binding  authority,  or  as  a  decision  of  the  case.  The  questions  of  law 
and  tact  involved  were  fully  and  candidly  submitted  to  you,  and  after  a 
careful  examination  you  reached  the  conclusion  that  the  law,  in  your 
opinion,  is  with  the  State.  That  conclusion  having  been  expiessed  by 
you  in  a  written  communication  to  me  under  date  of  August  26th,  of 
the  present  year,  wherein  you  say,  "I  sent  the  papers  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Interior,  with  an  indorsement  that  my  impression  of  the  law  was  not 
changed,  and  in  another  (the  indorsement  you  refer  to)  in  which  you 
said  you  believed  the  law  was  with  the  State,  I  hold  to  be  such  an  ex- 
pression of  your  opinion  as  ought  to  have  been  respected  and  acted  on 
in  the  Interior  Department.  I  do  not  claim  that  in  a  legal  sense  yon 
expressly  passed  upon  or  decided  the  case,  but  only  that  you  gave  an 
expression  of  your  view  of  the  law.  At  the  time  you  did  this  1  admit 
the  case  was  not  before  you  for  determination.  But  if  it  could  be  assumed 
that  you  had  passed  upon  it  definitely  and  finally,  the  following  argu- 
ments pertaining  to  a  determination,  would  seem  to  be  just  and  conclu- 
sive, and  may,  perhaps,  apply  with  some  force  to  the  obligation  of  an 
inferior  officer  to  carr}'  out  the  will  or  judgment  of  his  superior;  espe- 
cially when  it  is  made  the  duty  of  that  superior  to  "take  care  that  the 
laws  are  faithfully  executed,"  imposing  upon  HIM  both  the  legal  and 
moral  obligation  to  do  it. 

All  the  executive  power  of  the  United  States  is  vested  by  the  Consti- 
tution, in  the  President.  It  is  his  duty  to  see  that  the  laws  are  faith- 
fully executed.  Plis  power  of  delegating  his  authority  goes  no  further 
than  to  direct  how,  in  general  or  in  particular,  his  determinations  shall 
be  executed.  He  has  no  power  to  give  to  a  subordinate  executive  offi- 
cer authority  to  make  a  different  decision,  for  that  would  be  an  evasion 
of  his  own  oath  of  office,  and  defeat  the  guaranty  of  his  own  responsi- 
bility. Therefore,  when  the  President  has  decided  the  law,  and  reached 
a  conclu°ion  in  any  matter  of  executive  responsibility  in  his  own  proper 
person,  nothing  remains  for  any  interior  officer  to  do,  but  to  carry  that 


56 

decision  into  effect.     That  inferior  cannot  determine  because  there  has 
already  been  a  determination  by  the  executive  himself. 

Every  determination  of  the  President  requires  some  sort  of  action  to 
carry  it  into  effect.  It  must  be  authenticated  in  the  departments  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  methods  of  public  business.  Bat  all  such  methods  and 
all  such  authentications  are  something  more  and  something  subsequent 
to  the  determination. 

Taa  dstarminition,  decision,  judg.nsnt  or  will  of  the  Executive  on  a 
subject  matter  properly  before  him,  disposes  of  that  matter,  and  nothing 
is  left  for  auy  department,  officer  or  agent  to  do  but  to  carry  into  effect 
the  decision  and  preserve  its  history.  It  is  wholly  immaterial  what  the 
question  is  which  is  so  disposed  of,  so  that  it  arose  in  the  line  of  execu- 
tive duty  and  was  determined.  When  the  determination  is  made,  no 
other  determination  can  be  made  by  any  subordinate  will. 

But  should  your  Excellency  consider  the  opinion  rendered  by  the  In- 
terior Secretary  a  decision,  I  still  desire  to  urge  that  it  is  entirely  cooi- 
petent  and  proper  for  you  to  review  the  action  of  the  Secretary,  aud  to 
make  his  action  conform  to  your  opinion. 

The  Government  is  divided  into  three  co-ordinate  branches — legislative, 
executive  aud  judicial — each  independent  of  the  other,  and  neither  re- 
sponsible to  the  other  co-ordinate  branches  for  the  manner  in  which  it 
discharges  its  constitutional  functions.  I  repeat,  the  constitution  pro- 
vides that  the  executive  department  shall  be  vested  in  the  President, 
whose  most  important  duty  is  "to  see  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  execu- 
ted," and  of  course  as  HE  understands  them.  Neither  of  the  oilier  de- 
partments can  abridge  or  annul  his  power.  He  derives  it  directly  from 
the  national  organic  act,  and  the  executive~"power  is  vested  in  him  as  an 
entirety.  He  cannot  constitutionally  divide  or  share  it  with  another  if 
lie  would.  As  a  matter  of  convenience  he  may  and  does  allow  others  to 
act  for  him,  but  their  acts  are,  in  legal  contemplation,  h'S  own.  What 
they  do  is  impliedly  done  by  him  unless  he  reverses  their  action.  This 
is  the  legal  conclusion.  They  are  his  conveniences — not  his  equals — 
agents  to  execute  his  will — not  his  co-executives — his  auxiliaries — not 
the  original  source  of  power.  They  are  made  and  unmade  by  his 
breath,  and  it  may  truthfully  be  said  that,  offieiallj7,  "  in  him  they  live, 
and  move,  aud  hare  their  being."  Hence  there  can  be  no  question  but 
that  the  Bupei4tic  etn  overrule  the  inferior  authority,  which  constitutes 
but  a  branch  «f  i£«elf,  created  by  law,  only  to  assist  the  superior  power 
in  the  details  of  business  without  destroying  or  abridging  its  attributes. 
All  the  refinements  of  false  logic  on  common  sense  cannot  change  this 
truth. 

Besides,  the  right  of  appeal  has  been  sanctioned  by  usage,  and  is  sup- 
poit^d  by  the  opinions  of  the  law  officers  of  the  Government.  I  have 
Lunted  up  the  authorities  upon  this  point,  but  will  leave  its  particular 
discussion  to  the  able  and  distinguished  gentleman  who  appears  with 
mo  in  behalf  of  the  State,  and  wlio  is  far  more  able  to  do  it  justice  than 
I  am,  contenting  myself  with  a  general  view  of  the  subject,  yet  I  hope 
ft  correct  legal  one. 

When  the  language  of  the  Legislature  is  so  peremptory  in  directing 
a  subordinate  executive  officer  to  do  a  certain  act,  as  it  is  in  the  laws  I 
have  cited,  certainly  the  constitution  requires  that  the  President,  in 


57 

whom  is  located  all  the  executive  power,  shall  see  that  "  the  laws  are 
faithfully  executed,"  and  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  any  departmental 
functionary  to  intervene,  and  thurst  himself  as  a  barrier  between  the  ob- 
ligation to  perform  the  act,  and  the  President's  obligation  to  see  that  the 
act  enjoined  is  performed. 

The  President  delegates  his  power  in  the  manner  I  have  stated, 
merely  that  his  convenience  and  that  of  the  public  may  be  thereby  sub- 
surved.  To  say  that  an  officer,  who  is  the  creature  of  executive  con- 
venience, may  refuse  to  obey  a  positive  legislative  enactment,  and  that 
the  President  has  no  power  to  control  the  refusal  of  such  officer,  is  to 
relieve  the  President  from  his  constitutional  obligations,  and  to  substi- 
tute for  the  executive  authority  the  caprice  of  an  irresponsible  subor- 
dinate. 

Certainly  the  fraraers  of  the  constitution  never  intended  to  place  such 
vast  and  important  power  in  irresponsible  hands — never  intended  to 
exalt  the  subalterns  above  the  superior.  You  are  responsible  to  the 
people  for  the  manner  in  which  you  discharge  your  duty.  They  are 
only  responsible  to  you.  and  their  refusal  or  omission  to  execute  a  law 
imposes  upon  you  the  imperative  duty  of  doing  it.  If  this  was  not  so, 
the  whole  executive  power  of  the  Government  would  be  parcelled  out 
among  those  without  accountability,  arid  would  become  a  weak  and 
wicked  instrument  in  the  hands  of  men  whom  the  people  could  not 
reach,  either  for  misfeasance  or  malfeasance  in  office.  A  direction  to  a 
subordinate  to  execute  a  law  is  a  direction  to  the  President.  The  law 
may  speak  directly  to  the  inferior,  but  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Executive  to 
see  that  he  performs  the  act. 

When  Mr.  Whittlesy  was  first  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  under  an 
appointment  from  President  Taylor,  he  recognized  the  binding  authority 
or  direction  of  his  superior  officer  when  passing  the  Galphin  claim  for 
interest,  by  appending  to  his  name  or  signiture  of  approval,  the  word? : 
"  The  signing  of  this  certificate  is  an  administrative  act,"  referring  to 
the  order  or  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  him  to  sign 
it.  lie  was  himself  opposed  to  it.  If  the  Treasurer  could  control  the 
Comptroller,  the  President  can  certainly  control  the  head  of  an  execu- 
tive department,  and  more  especially  the  Laud  Commissioner. 

When  Mr.  Tyler  was  President,  he  directly  ordered  a  claim  for  to- 
bacco, destroyed  in  Maryland,  in  the  war  of  1812,  which  a  subordinate 
officer  had  refused  to  allow;  and  many  similar  cases  to  the  above  onea 
exist  in  the  executive  records,  but  I  leave  them  for  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman, with  whom  I  am  associated,  to  use  if  he  thinks  proper  to  do  so. 

But,  Mr.  President,  it  does  not  make  substantially  any  diflerence,  in 
my  judgment,  whether,  technically,  an  appeal  lies  to  you  or  not.  I 
have  never  had  any  great  admiration  for  technicalities  or  quibbles,  nor 
do  I  believe  you  have.  The  real  questions  to  look  at  are:  Has  justice 
been  done?  Has  the  law  been  executed?  or  has  it  been  disregarded  or 
violated  ?  You  know,  Mr.  President,  that  justice  has  not  been  done, 
and  that  the  law  has  not  been  executed,  and  that  it  should  be.  In  this 
state  of  facts  it  is  my  belief  you  have  no  discretion,  but  a  plain  and  im- 
perative duty  to  perform,  which  is  "  to  see  that  it  is  executed."  No 
higher  constitutional  obligation  rests  upon  you.  The  remedy  is  in  your 
own  hands,  and  can  be  easily  applied.  There  are  numerous  instaiicea 


58 

upon  the  record  of  the  Executive  Department,  showing  that  when  minis- 
terial officers  refused  to  execute  the  laws,  Presidents  found  and  adopted 
ready  means  to  have  them  executed,  and  especially  when  that  ministe- 
rial officer  acted  in  direct  violation  of  the  known  views  of  the  President, 
and  in  total  disregard  of  them.  Presidents  cannot  afford  to  pursue  the 
shadow;  they  must  follow  the  substance.  They  cannot  afford  to  "  keep 
the  word  of  promise  to  the  ear,  and  break  it  to  the  hope  ;  "  and  your 
own  high  character  for  integrity  furnishes  a  safe  guaranty  you  will  not 
seek  to  evade  but  establish  justice.  The  simple  truth  is,  (and  I  must  say 
it  at  the  risk  of  its  being  regarded  unprofessional,)  they  have  underta- 
ken to  turn  my  State  out  of  court  upon  false  issues,  and  she  does  not 
intend  to  go  out  in  that  way.  If  she  can  be  beaten  fairly  on  the  merits 
of  her  cause,  that  is  all  well,  but  she  deserves  better  treatment  than  to 
be  thrust  aside  on  mere  technicalities  and  assumptions,  or  crushed  by 
mere  power. 

Having  now,  Mr.  President,  conclusively  shown,  as  1  think,  by  a 
brief  statement  of  legal  propositions  and  deductions,  that  you  can  hear 
and  determine  this  appeal,  if  it  is  to  be  treated  and  considered  in  that 
light — that/a  failure  to  do  so  will  make  the  opinion  of  a  subordinate 
your  opinion,  when  it  is  not  in  fact  and  reality  yours,  I  might,  with  pro- 
priety rest  my  case.  But  if  I  should  do  so,  I  would  not,  perhaps,  be 
treating  you  with  entire  fairness,  or  my  State  with  justice. 

The  Interior  Department,  as  I  have  already  said,  having  given  an 
opinion  adverse  to  the  State's  claim,  it  maybe  my  duty  to  briefly  review 
it.  From  its  great  length  and  the  evident  labor  bestowed  on  that  opin- 
ion, it  may  be  safely  assumed,  that  nothing  which  could  be  done  has 
been  left  undone,  to  invalidate  the  rights  of  Illinois.  Not  a  trace  of 
generous  liberality  has  been  applied  in  the  construction  of  the  laws,  but 
the  State  has  been  held  to  the  most  rigid  rule. 

What  appears  strange,  the  Interior  Department  did  not  act  upon  the 
record  sent  to  it  from  the  General  Land  Office,  but  assumed  independent, 
original  jurisdiction  of  the  case,  which  it  certainly  had  no  right  to 
do,  and  determined  to  de  nova.  The  Land  Commissioner  is  direc- 
ted by  the  law  to  state  the  account,  and  when  he  has  made  out  and 
sent  up  his  record,  the  interior  department  has  no  authority  to  assume 
that  certain  facts  exist  outside  of  it — to  make  up  a  new  case;  yet  this 
has  been  done,  and  the  issues  changed,  without  giving  me,  as  the  agent 
of  the  State,  the  privilege  of  being  heard.  Of  this  I  have  just  reason 
to  complain.  The  law  provides  that  an  appeal  may  ba  taken  in  cases 
coming  before  the  General  Land  Office,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 
An  appeal  of  what?  Evidently  of  the  case  before  the  land  office,  and 
as  it  existed  there,  and  that  is  the  case  the  Interior  Secretary  is  only 
legally  authorized  to  act  upon,  and  not  upon  one  made  up  by  himself, 
and  he  has  not  acted  on  such  a  case. 

To  suffer  any  other  practice  to  grow  up  in  governmental  departments, 
would  not  only  be  legally  wrong,  but  lead  to  interminable  embarrass- 
ments and  difficulties  to  the  Government  itself,  and  work  incalculable 
injury  to  parties. 

The  Land  Commissioner  refused  to  make  up  the  account  of  Illinois, 
under  the  act  of  March  3d,  1857,  for  the  settlement  of  the  five  per  cent, 
account  of  Mississippi  and  other  states,  upon  the  ground  that  the  law 


59 

only  applied  to  Indian  reservations.  The  Interior  Secretary  decides 
against  Illinois  upon  the  additional  ground  that  she  has  already,  as  he 
alleges,  received  the  amount  in  the  construction  of  the  national  road. 

The  foregoing  facts  constitute  very  strong  reasons  in  favor  of  a  direct 
interference  on  your  part,  Mr.  President,  to  the  end  that  justice  may  bo 
done,  and,  of  themselves,  make  this  no  ordinary  case. 

How  could  the  Secretary  assume — what  right  had  he  to  assume,  that 
the  claim  of  Illinois  had  already  been  liquidated,  when  no  account  had 
been  stated  by  the  Land  Commissioner  ?  It  is  true,  the  law  says  "  he 
shall  state  an  account,"  but  the  Commissioner  says  he  will  not  state  it, 
and  the  Interior  Secretary  says  he  need  not  state  it.  The  law  is  one 
way  and  their  dicta  another.  The  law  does  not  say  the  account  "may 
be  stated,"  but  that  he  is  "  REQUIRED"  to  state  it.  The  law  leaves  to  the 
Commissioner  no  discretionary  power,  but  is  mandatory,  direct  and 
positive  in  its  terms,  free  from  doubt  or  ambiguity.  But  the  Land  Com- 
missioner assumes  the  right  to  exercise  a  discretion — to  set  up  his  will 
in  lieu  of  the  law — in  short,  refuses  to  execute  it.  Whether  the  law,  or 
his  will,  supported  by  the  Interior  Secretary,  is  to  prevail,  remains  to  be 
determined.  Illinois  stands  upon  the  law,  and  asks  that  you  shall  di- 
rect your  ministerial  officer  to  execute  it. 

The  application  made  by  me,  as  agent  for  the  State,  was  to  have  the 
account  stated  under  the  law  to  show: 

1st.  What  was  the  amount  of  the  two  per  cent.  fund. 

2d.  That  the  amount  thus  ascertained  should  be  allowed  and  paid. 

Tlie  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Officj  refused  to  state  such 
account  on  the  ground  that  the  law  upon  which  I  rely  applies  only  to 
Indian  reservations.  From  his  decision  I  appealed,  and  the  Interior 
Secretary  sustains  the  decision  of  the  Commissioner,  and  gives  as  his 
reason,  that  the  amount  I  claim  for  the  State  has  already  been  ex- 
pended by  indirect  appropriations  for  other  purposes !  The  language  of 
tl^e  act  is,  as  I  have  said,  mandatory,  and  the  statement  of  the  account 
isthej£/'6^  thing  directed  to  be  dowe.  And  I  affirm  that  this  must  be 
done  before  it  is  possible  to  raise  any  question  as  to  the  account  of  the 
State,  having  been  liquidated  and  balanced  by  expenditures  for  diiferent 
objects. 

I  made  application  to  the  Land  Commissioner  to  direct  an  account  to 
be  made  up,  showing  what  would  be  two-tilths  of  the  five  per  cent,  of 
the  net  pioceeds,  arising  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,  sold  in  the 
State  of  Illinois  since  January  1st,  1816,  and  based  the  application  upon 
the  act  of  1857,  which  will  be  found  embraced  in  my  report  to  Governor 
Yates,  and  in  the  Honorable  Secretary's  opinion,  and  with  which  you 
are  familiar.  The  control  of  this  iund  was  reserved  in  the  enabling  act 
of  the  State  by  Congress,  to  be  expended,  under  its  own  direction,  "  in 
making  roads  leading  to  the  State."  It  was  given  to  the  State,  but  the 
General  Government  reserved  to  herself  the  right,  as  trustee,  to  direct 
its  expenditure  in  the  manner  I  ha-e  already  stated,  but  will  make  still 
more  evident  before  I  conclude.  The  inquiry  I  made  for  the  State,  was, 
what  is  the  amount  of  the  fund  thus  reserved,  and  whether  the  General 
Government  has  it  now  in  its  possession,  and  by  what  authority  she  re- 
tains it — and  if  not  now,  by  what  authority  it  has  been  expended  and 
how. 


60 

The  State  lias  a  right  to  know,  from  the  proper  accounting  officer, 
definitely,  in  dollars  and  cents,  what  the  amount  of  the  fund  is,  and  she 
has  also  the  right  to  know  definitely,  in  dollars  and  cents,  what  sums  have 
been  charged  against  that  fund,  and  for  what  purpose,  if  any,  it  has  been 
used.  The  existence  of  the  fund  is  acknowledged  by  the  Honorable  Sec- 
retary, but  the  inquiry  of  the  State  as  to  its  amount,  is  now  met  by  the 
vague  negation  that  "no  part  of  it  now  remains  in  the  treasury,  nor  has 
one  dollar  of  it  been  diverted  from  the  object  for  which  it  was  re- 
served." 

It  is  certainly  but  proper  that  the  State  should  have  some  tran- 
script from  the  Treasury  Department,  or  some  statement  from  some 
officer,  made  by  law,  the  medium  through  which  the  contents  of  the 
treasury  are  made  known,  rather  than  the  assertion  of  a  secretary, 
whose  duties  are  quite  other  than  those  relating  to  the  affairs  of  the 
treasury. 

By  proper  inquiry  I  have  ascertained  that  the  books  of  the  Treasury 
Department  do  nut  show  any  such  fund  as  that  referred  to  by  the  Hon- 
orable Secretary,  or  that  it  has  been  exhausted  by  the  expenditures  that 
he  enumerates.  The  account  has  never  been  stated,  and  no  man  knows 
to-day  what  it  is.  I  approximated  it  in  my  report  to  Governor  Yates,  on 
the  basis  of  the  three  per  cent,  fund,  and  the  Secretary  appears  to  have 
acted  on  that  approximation.  I  supposed  he  would  require  from  the 
Treasury  Department  an  authentic  statement  of  the  account  before  he 
arrived  at  a  conclusion  on  the  point,  and  the  fact  that  he  did  not  obtain 
it,  is  a  convincing  reason  why  the  case  should  be  reviewed. 

In  confirmation  of  what  1  have  said,  I  beg  leave  to  respectfully  read 
the  following  statements,  furnished  me  from  the  Treasury  Department. 
It  appears  from  the  certificate  of  the  Acting  Register  that  no  account  has 
ever  been  kept  in  that  department  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Illinois. 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  COMPTROLLER'S  OFFICE,  Sept.  3, 1863. 

HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  WASHINGTON  CITY  : 

SIR — Your  communication,  of  yesterday's  date,  has  been  received, 
and  in  reply  thereto  you  are  informed  that  no  account  has  ever  been 
kept  or  stated  in  this  office  for  the  two-fifths  of  five  per  cent*  oi'  the  net 
proceeds  of  public  lands  lying  within,  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Very  respectfully, 

R.  W.  TAYLER, 

Comptroller. 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  REGISTER'S  OFFICE,  Sept.  3,  1863. 

I  hereby  certify  that  the  records  of  this  office  show  that  no  account 
has  been  kept  with  the  State  of  Illinois  on  account  of  the  two  per  cent, 
fund.  R.  SOLGER, 

HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS.  Acting  Register. 

But,  Mr.  President,  permit  me  to  refer  more  particularly  to  the  law 
of  1857,  and  the  construction  given  to  it.  The  Land  Commissioner  says 
"it  relates  to  money  received  by  the  Government  for  lands  which  have 
been  reserved  for  certain  Indian  tribes,"  and  there  he  leaves  it.  The 
duty  was  left  to  the  Honorable  Secretary  of  supplying  the  argument, 


61 

and  he  has  adopted  the  novel  mode  of  arriving  at  a  conclusion  entirely 
from  extraneous  circumstances,  and  not  by  putting  upon,  or  even  at- 
tempting to  give  an  interpretation  to  the  words  and  context  of  the  law 
itself.  Reduced  to  the  form  of  a  sylogism,  his  argument  is  this:  There 
is  a  law  of  1841 ;  that  law  provides  for  paying  the  two  per  cent,  to  Mis- 
sissippi; therefore  Congress  has  not  passed  any  other  law  embracing 
the  same  object.  Again,  there  were  certain  Indian  reservations  in  Mis- 
sissippi ;  Congress  passed  an  act  providing  for  paying  to  Mississippi  five 
per  cent,  on  those  reservations ;  therefore  Congress  did  not  embrace 
any  other  object  or  purpose  in  t|ie  law  of  1857. 

The  Honorable  Secretary,  in  his  opinion,  says :  "  Mr.  Morris  contends 
that  Alabama  and  Mississippi  received  the  two  per  cent,  fund  by  virtue 
of  the  above  acts,  and  that  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1857  makes 
the  provisions  of  the  preceding  section  general,  and  consequently  being 
applicable  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  justifies  the  claim  in  qoefttioa. 

"The  argument,  therefore,  is  grounded  upon  an  assumed  fac*",  and  I 
may  concede  that  a  casual  examination  of  those  acts,  without  regard  to 
pre-existing  legislation,  and  the  peculiar  circumstances  which"  led  to 
their  passage,  would  apparently  sanction  Mr.  Morris'  conclusion.  The 
assumption  of  the  fact  is,  however,  gratuitous  and  untenable.  Congress 
relinquished  the  two  per  cent,  to  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi 
by  the  16th  and  17th  sections  of  the  act  approved  September  4th, 
1841." 

When  the  Honorable  Secretary  made  the  foregoing  statement,  my  re- 
port to  Gov.  Yates  was  before  him,  and  he  was  making  frequent  refer- 
ences to  it.  It,  therefore,  seems  almost  inexcusable  that  he  should  so 
materially  misapprehend  my  position.  What  I  say  in  that  report  is 
this: 

"  What,  as  he  (the  Land  Commissioner)  seems  to  suppose,  two  sections 
incorporated  into  the  pre-emption  act  of  1841,  relating  to  the  two  per 
cent,  fund  due  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  can  have  to  do  with  the  con- 
struction of  the  act  of  1855  and  1857,  making  no  reference  to  the  special 
legislation  referred  to,  is  more  than  I  can  discern.  The  Commis- 
sioner seems  to  forget  that  the  laws  of  1855  and  1857  were  passed 
long  subsequent  to  the  special  legislation  of  1841,  and  that  the  act  of 
1857  is  a  general  act,  intended  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  states,  and  re- 
quires the  live  per  cent,  to  be  paid  to  each  state.  Is  each  state  to  be 
deprived  of  its  rights  under  that  act  because  some  sixteen  years  before, 
Congress  passed  a  special  law  for  Alabama  and  Mississippi?  The  Com- 
missioner certainly  cannot  doubt  but  that  Mississippi,  if  she  had  not 
previously  received  her  five  per  cent.,  could  receive  all  or  any  part  of  it 
under  the  act  of  1857;  and,  if  Mississippi,  why  not  '  each  of  the  other 
states?'  The  law  so  provides,  and  covers  the  original  sura  and  all 
arrears  due  Mississippi  and  other  states." 

After  misstating  my  premises  ;  after  asserting  that  my  argument  is 
founded  upon  an  assumed  fact ;  after  asservating  that  the  assumption  of 
that  fact  was  gratuitous  and  untenable,  the  Secretary  gravely  comes  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  argument  is  ungrounded!  I  submit,  from  the 
showing  I  have  made,  that,  having  ascribed  to  me  wrong  premises,  his 
conclusions  are  necessarily  false.  "  The  mote  is  in  his  own  eye,"  and  I 


62 

respect  fully  return  upon  him  the  compliment,  that  his  "assumption  of 
the  fact  is  gratuitous  and  untenable." 

Tiie  law  of  1841  does,  as  the  Honorable  Secretary  has  stated,  relin- 
quish to  Mississippi  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  fifth  section 
of  her  enabling  act,  to  be  paid  in  two  equal  installments,  and  quarterly 
after  the  payment  of  the  last  installment;  but  I  am  unable  to  perceive 
any  good  reason  in  this  why  Congress  should  not  subsequently  pass  aw. 
act  requiring  ike  whole  Jive  per  cent,  account  to  be  stated  "for  the  pur- 
pose" as  the  language  of  the  law  is,  "of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums, 
of  'money  are  due  to  said  State \  (Mis&issfopiJ)  heretofore  unsettled,  on  ac- 
count of  the  public  lands  in  said  State"  under  the  provisions  of  the  sec- 
tion of  her  enabling  act  I  have  just  referred  to,  and  require  any  balance 
to  be  paid. 

The  same  is  true  of  Alabama,  for  the  law  of  1857,  passed  for  the 
relief  of  Mississippi,  and  other  states,  is  founded  on  the  Alabama  act  of 
1855,  with  which  your  Excellency  is  familiar. 

The  Honorable  Secretary,  on  the  basis  of  the  foregoing  premises,  ar- 
rives at  the  strange  conclusion  that  the  act  of  184:1  interposes,  as  an 
insuperable  barrier,  to  the  rigVts  of  Illinois  under  the  law  of  1857 !  I 
am  not  able  to  see  the  matter  in  that  light,  and  it  would  certainly  re- 
quire a  legal  microscope  of  extraordinary  power  to  discover  the  legiti- 
macy of  his  conclusion. 

Having  planted  the  act  of  1841  as  an  outpost,  to  guard  his  further 
progress,  and  as  furnishing  a  proper  interpretation  of  -the  law  of  1857, 
the  Honorable  Secretary  advances  upon  the  Indian  reservations  in  Ala- 
bama and  Mississippi,  the  history  of  which,  and  the  claims  growing  out 
of  them,  he  details  at  some  length,  which  features  it  is  wholly  immate- 
rial I  should  examine,  as  they  are  extra-judicial  matters  injected  into  his 
opinion,  and  properly  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  case.  I  suppose, 
however,  his  object  in  using  the  statement  he  has,  pertaining  thereto,  is 
to  sho'w  there  was  no  necessity  for  the  law  of  1857,  except  to  give  to 
Mississippi  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations,  which  alone,  in  his 
judgment,  superinduced  its  passage. 

In  conclusion  he  says : 

"Now  in  view  of  the  inducements  that  led  to  the  passage  of  these 
laws  and  the  objects  they  were  intended  to  accomplish,  I  submit  that 
but  one  construction  can  be  given  them. 

"  They  plainly  require  that  in  ascertaining  the  amount  of  five  per 
cent,  due  to  those  states  by  virtue  of  existing  laws,  the  reservations  under 
treaties  should  be  included  in  the  account,  and  that  the  land  covered  by 
them  should  be  estimated  at  $1,25  per  acre. 

"  The  section  section  requires  that  the  Commissioner  should  state  an 
account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the  other  states  upon  the 
same  principle. 

"  Upon  what  principle  ?     The  obvious  answer  is  the  principle  that  the , 
land  reserved  under  Indian  treaties  should  be  regarded  as  so  much  land 
sold  by  the  United  States,  and  should  be  estimated  at  $1,25  per  acre. 

"  I  am  unable  to  perceive  that  the  claim  which  Mr.  Morris  repre- 
sents, has  any  foundation  in  the  letter  of  these  acts,  or  in  their  spirit, 
meaning  or  intention." 


63 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  propose  to  briefly  analyze  the  law  of  1855, 
passed  for  the  benefit  of  Alabama,  and  the  law  of  1857,  passed  for  the 
benefit  of  Mississippi  and  other  states,  and  see  whether  their  sole  abject 
was  to  give  to  the  states  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations,  and 
whether  they  require  nothing  more,  as  the  Honorable  Secretary  asserts, 
than  to  include  in  the  five  per  cent,  account  authorized  to  be  paid  by 
previous  acts  of  Congress,  the  five  per  cent,  on  the  value  of  Indian  reser- 
vations. For  that  object,  why  was  it  necessary  to  state  a  new  account? 

The  Honorable  Secretary  says  he  is  unable  to  perceive  that  the  claim 
which  I  represent  has  any  foundation  in  the  "spirit,  meaning  or  inten- 
tion" of  the  acts  of  1855  and  1857.  If  they  have  no  such  foundation  I 
ask  no  benefit  from  them  for  Illinois — if  they  have,  the  Honorable  Sec- 
retary's long  experience  in  the  law,  and  great  acumen,  ought  to  enable 
him  to  discover  it,  and  grant  to  my  State  the  rights  she  is  entitled  to 
under  them.  It  will  not  avail  to  make  a  simple  declaration,  and  leave 
it  unsupported  by  argument.  I  desire  nothing  more  than  that  the  laws 
should  be  tested  by  all  the  legal  rules  of  construction,  their  words,  con- 
tents, subject  matter,  effect  and  consequence,  spirit  and  reason,  but  at 
the  same  time,  I  protest  against  their  being  set  aside  by  outside  issues, 
and  deductions  drawn  from  those  issues. 

How  can  "other  states"  have  their  five  per  cent,  account  on  public 
lands  stated,  if  they  had  no  Indian  reservations,  if,  as  the  Honorable 
Secretary  asserts,  the  five  per  cent,  on  those  reservations  was  to  attach  to 
said  accounts  or  be  included  in  them  ?  According  to  the  assumption  of 
the  Honorable  Secretary,  there  must  exist  another  law,  authorizing  the 
payment  of  the  five  per  cent,  on  the  public  lauds  sold  within  a  state  be- 
fore an  account  can  be  stated  and  paid.  Where  there  is  no  such  law — 
and  I  admit  no  special  act  has  been  passed  for  the  benefit  of  Illinois — 
there  can  be  no  statement,  according  to  his  logic,  of  the  five  per  cent,  ac- 
count, so  that  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1857,  relating  to  "  other 
states,"  is  rendered  entirely  nugatory.  In  other  words,  the  legislative 
power  of  the  Government  was  guilty  of  the  consummate  folly,  according 
to  the  Honorable  Secretary's  reasoning,  of  passing  an  act  without  an 
object,  and  without  a  meaning.  I  leave  the  Honorable  Secretary  to  re- 
concile, as  best  he  can  with  Congress,  the  difference  between  them. 

Let  the  argument  be  stated  in  another  form.  According  to  the  Hon- 
orable Secretary's  logic,  another  law  must  exist,  as  a  basis  for  the  com- 
putation of  the  five  per  cent.  It  was  so  with  Alabama  and  Mississippi, 
aiid  he  thinks  it  must  necessarily  be  so  with  other  states,  and  therefore, 
where  there  is  no  such  law,  there  can  be  no  such  computation,  according 
to  his  opinion.  And  yet  the  land  commissioner,  confining  himself 
within  the  scope  and  meaning  of  the  Honorable  Secretary's  opinion,  de- 
cides that  under  the  law  of  1857  Illinois  is  entitled  to  the  five  per  cent, 
on  her  Indian  reservations,  which  amount  to  41,754  59-100  acres  in  the 
aggregate,  and  that  he  will  state  that  account  with  a  view  to  its  pay- 
ment. I  beg  leave  to  read  the  correspondence  which  passed  between 
us  on  the  subject. 

[NOTE. — This  correspondence  will  be  found  in  a  subsequent  part  of 
the  report,  relating  to  the  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations.] 

How  can  the  commissioner  state  the  account,  when,  by  the  very  terms 
of  the  law,  it  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  separate,  distinct,  substantive 


64  i 

account,  but  an  account  to  be  "included"  in  another  account,  to  wit: 
the  five  per  cent,  land  account.  The  absurdity  into  which  the  Honora- 
ble Secretary  and  the  Honorable  Land  Commissioner  have  fallen,  is  so 
apparent  that  the  proposition  need  only  be  stated  to  be  understood. 
Why  did  the  law  of  1857  provide  for  or  say  anything  about  stating  an 
account,  under  the  fifth  section  of  the  enabling  act  of  Mississippi,  it"  that 
was  not  to  be  done?  It  could  simply  have  provided  for  the  payment 
to  that  state,  and  would  have  so  provided  if  that  had  been  its  sole  ob- 
ject of  the  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations.  There  is  nothing  in  ' 
the  fifth  section  of  the  enabling  act  of  Mississippi  which  in  anywise  re- 
fers to  Indian  reservations,  or  which  relates  to  five  per  cent,  thereon, 
but  it  relates  exclusively  to  the  five  per  cent,  on  public  lands  within  the 
state,  upon  which  five  per  cent,  was  to  be  computed,  and  then  the  five 
per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations  was  to  be  added,  or  "  included" — that 
is  the  word  the  law  uses. 

What  is  true  of  Mississippi  is  equally  true  of  Illinois,  one  of  the  "other 
states."  The  five  per  cent,  on  the  public  lands  valued  at  $1,25  per 
acre,  was  first  to  be  stated,  in  the  form  of  an  account,  and  then  the  five 
per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations  was  to  be  "included,"  that  is,  put  in 
the  account,  and  the  whole  amount  "allowed  and  paid."  This  conclu- 
sion is  as  inevitable  as  that  two  and  two  make  four.  No  reasoning  or 
sophistry  can  overthrow  it,  and  it  is  but  trifling  with  legitimate  deduc- 
tions to  attempt  it.  So  clear  is  it  that  we  might  as  well  cavil  with  the 
decree  of  the  Almighty,  when  He  spoke  the  sublime  words,  "  Let  there 
be  light,  aisd  there  was  light." 

But  the  Honorable  Secretary  says,  after  reaching  the  conclusion  on 
the  basis  of  his  method  of  reasoning,  and  this  is  all  he  says  about  it: 

"The  second  section"  (referring  to  the  law  of  1857,)  "requires  that 
the  commissioner  should  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and 
each  of  the  other  states,  upon  the  same  principle." 

"Upon  what  principle?  The  obvious  answer  is,  the  principle  that 
the  land,  reserved  under  Indian  treaties,  should  be  regarded  as  so  much 
land  sold  by  the  United  States,  and  should  be  estimated  at  $1,25  per 
acre."  This  is  all  true  enough.  It  is  all  true  that  Indian  reservations 
were  to  be  treated  as  land  sold,  and  this  is  the  srle  conclusion  the  Hon- 
orable Secretary  draws  from  the  second  section  of  the  act.  Is  there 
anything  in  the  simple  fact  that  Indian  reservations  should  be  regarded 
and  treated  as  lands  "sold"  to  exclude  the  deduction  that  an  account 
should  be  stated  on  the  net  proceeds  of  the  public  lands?  Certainly  no 
such  deduction  can  properly  be  drawn  from  the  law  itself,  for  the  very 
groundwork  of  that  law  is  that  the  account  shall  be  stated  on  the  lands 
sold,  and  then  provides  that  Indian  reservations  shall  be  treated  in  the 
computation  as  such  lands.  The  Honorable  Secretary  has  sought  for, 
without  finding,  a  secure  refuge  under  a  conclusion,  right  enough  in  it- 
self, but  essentially  Avrong  when  tested  by  the  entire  provisions  of  the 
law.  And  yet,  in  language  covering  ten  lines,  upon  such  reasoning  as 
I  have  stated,  he  seeks  to  set  aside  the  important  interest  of  my  State. 
The  tact  alone  that  Indian  reservations  were  to  be  treated  as  lands 
*'  sold,"  shows  of  itself  that  both  were  to  be  included  in  the  account  to 
be  stated.  I  protest,  in  the  name  of  my  State,  against  his  reasoning, 


65 

and  his  deductions.  Both  are  unfounded,  except  upon  violent  presump- 
tions and  false  conclusions. 

The  very  title  of  the  act  of  1857,  which  is  its  best  interpreter,  sustains 
the  construction  1  have  given  to  the  law.  It  is  "An  act  to  settle  certain 
accounts,"  using  the  plural  term,  "between  the  United  States  and  the 
state  of  Mississippi," — not  to  settle  an  account,  but  '"certain  accounts" — 
thus  showing  conclusively  that  the  live  per  cent,  land  account,  and  the 
five  per  cent,  account  on  Indian  reservations,  were  both  to  be  included. 
As  with  Mississippi,  so  with  the  "other  states."  Their  accounts — not 
account — were  both  to  be  stated  ;  that  is,  the  five  per  cent,  account  on 
the  public  lands  sold,  and  the  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations, 
which,  when  ascertained,  was  to  be  included  in  the  first  or  land  account; 
and,  when  thus  stated,  the  law  declares  they  shall  be  "allowed  and 
paid."  Notwithstanding  this  is  so  plain,  the  land  commissioner  only 
proposes  to  state  the  account  of  the  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations. 
I  submit  that  his  action  is  wrong,  and  in  palpable  disregard  of  the  very 
letter  of  the  law. 

The  account  to  be  stated  for  Alabama  and  Mississippi  was  not  an  ac- 
count alone  of  the  two  per  cent,  which  the  law  of  1841  provided  for 
paying,  but  the  whole  five  per  cent,  account  on  public  lands,  including, 
ot  course,  the  three  per  cent,  which  they  had  received  under  and  by  vir- 
tue of  their  enabling  acts,  and  any  balance  fuund  due  was  to  be  allowed 
and  paid,  the  law  covering  both  the  two  and  the  three  per  cent,  fund,  so 
that  the  llonorable  Secretary  could  have  applied,  with  the  same  propri- 
ety and  correctness,  and  traced  to  an  equally  original  origin,  the  law  of 
1857,  if  he  had  applied  it  to  and  grounded  it  on  the  special  anterior  acts 
of  1817  and  1811),  enabling  the  people  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi  terri- 
tories to  form  state  governments,  as  he  did  in  tracing  it  to  and  Bounding 
it  on  the  law  of  1841,  providing  for  the  payment  of  the  two  per  cent, 
fund  to  those  states ;  and  to  the  three  per  cent.,  placed  by  the  first  acts 
directly  under  the  control  of  the  legislatures  of  those  states,  as  he  did  to 
the  two  per  cent,  provided  to  be  paid  over  under  the  last  named  act.  He 
could  also  have  found  an  interpretation  equally  intelligent  and  reasona- 
ble for  the  necessity  of  passing  the  act  of  18ii,  in  the  enabling  acts  for 
Alabama  and  Mississippi,  as  he  did  in  finding  a  necessity  for  the  act  of 
1857,  in  the  law  of  1841.  The  act  of  1857  relates  to  the  laws  of  1817 
and  1810,  precisely  as  it  does  to  the  law  of  1841.  Then  why  allow  the 
latter,  as  he  does,  to  furnish  the  only  solution  for  the  necessity  of  its 
passage?  The  reason  may  be  found  in  something  else,  perhaps  in  an 
anxiety  for  a  refuge,  but  certainly  not  in  his  interpretation  of  the  reason 
why  the  law  of  1857  was  passed,  to  wit :  to  cover  Indian  reservations, 
as  the  act  of  1841  covered  the  two  per  cent.  Did  not  the  laws  of  1817 
and  1819  cover  the  three  per  cent.  ?  And  why  should  not  the  necessity 
for  its  passage  be  found  in  the  latter  laws  as  well  as  the  former  ones?  If 
all  or  any  part  of  either  fund  remains  unpaid  to  Illinois  upon  the  accounf 
being  stated,  that  is.  upon  ascertaining  if  any,  and  if  so,  how  much,  has 
been  paid,  the  remainder  shall  be  allowed  and  paid,  deducting  the  pay- 
ments from  the  sum  total.  In  short,  the  law  of  1857  provides  for  closing 
up  the  whole  five  per  cent,  accounts  of  the  states,  by  declaring  that  the 
amounts  found  due  should  be  paid  to  them  upon  being  stated.  This  is 
just  what  it  means — nothing  more,  and  nothing  less — and  just  what  it 
—7 


(56 

was  intended  to  mean.  No  legal  mind  can  make,  legitimately  or  logi- 
cally, anything  else  out  of  it.  It'  it  does  not  mean  that  it  means  nothing, 
and  is  a  legislative  abortion.  Suppose  Alabama  and  Mississippi  had 
demanded,  under  the  law  of  1857,  a  statement  of  their  whole  five  per 
cent,  account,  and  they  may  have  done  it  for  aught  I  know,  for  it  was 
not  a  material  inquiry  with  me,  and  the  payment  of  any  balance  due, 
would  they  not  have  had  a  right  to  make  the  demand,  and  would  it  not 
have  been  clearly  the  duty  of  the  land  commissioner  to  have  complied 
with  such  demand  ?  If  Alabama  and  Mississippi  had  such  a  right,  why 
not  Illinois?  Why  refuse  to  deal  out  to  her  equal  and  exact  justice? 
"Why  deny  her  an  equal  privilege  under  the  law  ?  Why  this  favoritism  ? 
Why  turn  one  state  away,  when  you  would  not  and  could  not  another  ? 
Their  rights  are  equal  under  the  law,  and  Illinois  only  asks  to  be  placed 
where  Alabama  and  Mississippi  now  stand.  If  it  was  not  the  intention 
of  Congress  to  place  the  "other  states"  on  an  equal  footing  with  Ala- 
bama and  Mississippi,  in  respect  to  the  five  per  cent.,  why  did  they  say 
anything  about  it  in  that  connection  ?  and  why  did  they  so  provide  ? 

"Ai?  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the 
state  of  Alabama,"  approved  March  2d,  1855,  requires  "an  account  to 
be  stated."  What  account  ?  The  account  relating  to  Indian  reserva- 
tions? No.  What  account  then?  The  law  is  specific  in  defining  it. 
It  says  "  that  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  shall  state 
an  account  between  the  United  States  and  the  state  of  Alabama,  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said 
state,  heretofore  unsettled,  under  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  of  March 
second,  eighteen  hundred  and  nineteen,  for  the  admission  of  Alabama 
into  the  Union."  What  language  could  be  plainer  ?  The  land  com- 
missioner is  "required" — that  is  the  word  used  in  the  law — to  state  an 
account.  Between  whom?  "The  United  States  and  the  state  of  Ala- 
bama." For  what  object  ?  For  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum 
or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  said  state,  heretofore  unsettled.  Under 
what?  The  sixth  section  of  the  act  of  1819,  allowing  the  people  of  the 
territory  of  Alabama  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government,  pre- 
paratory to  their  admission  into  the  Union.  What  is  the  provision  of 
that  section?  I  will  read  it: 

"  That  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within 
the  said  territory,  and  which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress,  irom  and  after 
the  first  day  of  September,  in  the  year  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
nineteen,  after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  re- 
served for  making  public  roads,  canals,  and  improving  the  navigation 
of  rivers,  of  which  three-fifths  shall  be  applied  to  those  objects  within 
the  said  state,  under  the  direction  of  the  legislature  thereof,  and  two- 
fifths  to  the  making  of  a  road  or  roads  leading  to  said  state,  under  the 
direction  of  Congress." 

If  the  law  stopped  as  far  as  I  have  quoted  it,  there  would  be  found 
in  it  nothing  about  Indian  reservations,  but  it  goes  on  to  say  "  and  that 
he" — referring  to  the  land  commissioner — "  be  required  to  include  in  the 
said  account  the  several  reservations  under  the  various  treaties  with  the 
Chickasaw,  Choctaw  and  Creek  Indians,  and  allow  and  pay  to  the  said 
state  five  per  cent,  thereon,  as  in  the  case  of  other  sales,"  so  that  the  In- 
dian reservations  are  only  cumulative,  and  not,  as  the  Honorable  Secre- 


67 

tary  supposes,  the  original  substantive  object  of  the  legislation.  If  any 
arrears  were  found  due  to  Alabama,  under  the  sixth  section  of  the  act 
admitting  her  into  the  Union,  they  were  to  be  stated  and  paid  by  the 
act  of  1857,  whether  they  were  parts  of  the  two  or  three  per  cent,  fund, 
eo  that  it  became  necessary  that  the  law  should  be  wide  enough  and 
broad  enough  to  cover  the  whole  subject.  But  aside  from  this  I  submit 
whether  there  was  any  necessity  for  the  law  or  not.  Congress  was  the 
proper  judge,  and  not  the  Honorable  Secretary,  who  argues  upon  the 
assumption  there  was  no  necessity  for  it.  That  is  not  the  question — not 
the  proper  subject  of  inquiry — the  real  question  is,  does  the  law  exist  ? 
If  your  excellency  will  turn  to  the  Honorable  Secretary's  opinion,  you 
will  find  it  there. 

The  "Act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and 
the'state  of  Mississippi,  and  other  states,"  is  based  upon  the  Alabama 
act,  and  is  similar  in  its  provisions,  except  that  it  is  made  general  in  its 
terms,  and  fixes  the  value  of  all  public  lands,  as  well  as  Indian  reserva- 
tions, upon  which  the  five  per  cent,  is  to  be  stated  and  paid,  at  $1,25  per 
acre,  which  the  Alabama  act  omitted.  Illinois  is  one  of  the  "  other 
states,"  included  in  the  law,  and  I  only  ask  in  her  behalf  the  benefit  of 
its  provisions — only  ask  that  she  shall  be  placed  on  an  equal  footing, 
•vrhere  the  law  places  her,  with  Alabama  and  Mississppi. 

What  does  the  second  section  mean  when  it  fixes  the  value  of  "all 
lands"  as  well  as  '•  permanent  reservations,"  using  both  terms,  at  $1,25 
per  acre,  but  that  the  computation  of  the  five  per  cent,  should  be  made 
upon  both  ?  What  does  the  law  mean  when  it  says  the  amount  thus 
found  due  "  shall  be  allowed  and  paid  ?"  it  means  precisely  what  it 
says  or  it  means  nothing.  It  is  either  a  plain  statute,  which  any  one 
can  understand,  or  it  is  a  piece  of  useless  legislative  folly.  Confine  the 
construction  to  the  strictest  letter  of  the  act,  and  allow  no  spirit  of  gen- 
erous liberality  towards  a  state — let  the  harshest,  most  rigid  and  parsi- 
"monious  course  be  adopted  by  your  ministerial  officers,  and  still  the  law 
is  with  Illinois.  Every  effort  to  baffle,  distort  or  overthrow  it,  leaves  it 
the  same  plain,  unmistakable  statute.  Its  provisions  may  not  be  com- 
plied with,  but  they  cannot  bo  misunderstood  ;  they  may  be  disregarded, 
but  they  cannot  be  construed  away.  They  are  too  plain  to  cavil  over. 
-  Some  may,  and  probably  will,  derive  the  impression  from  the  tenor 
of  a  portion  of  the  Honorable  Secretary's  opinion,  that  Illinois  was 
only  entitled  to  three  per  cent,  on  her  public  lands,  which  she  received, 
while  Alabama  and  Mississippi  were  entitled  to  five.  The  fact  is,  each 
was  equally  entitled  to  the  five  per  cent,  the  provisions  in  their  enabling 
acts  being  similar,  except  that  Illinois  took  three  parts  of  her  five  per 
cent,  for  educational  purposes,  while  the  other  states  took  theirs  for  pur- 
poses of  improving  the  navigation  of  rivers,  and  constructing  roads  and 
canals.  Each  state  had  and  held  an  absolute  right  in  the  fund  set  apart 
to  them,  but  Congress  reserved  to  itself  the  right,  as  trustee,  to  expend 
two  parts  of  each,  to  construct  a  road  or  roads,  leading  to  each  state 
respectively.  The  money,  when  it  accumulated  in  the  treasury,  did  not 
belong  to  the  General  Government,  but  to  the  states.  They  had  ren- 
dered a  full  equivalent  therefor,  by  a  stipulation  between  them  and  tho 
United  States,  that  they  would  not  tax  the  public  lands  for  five  years 
after  their  entry,  nor  the  lands  of  non-residents  higher  than  those  of 


08 

residents,  and,  in  addition,  Illinois  exempted  patented  lands  from  taxa- 
tion-tor a  certain  period.  That  what  I  have  said  in  regard  to  the  live 
per  cent,  belonging  to  the  states  may  be  more  clearly  understood,  I  will 
read  the  provisions  relating  thereto,  applicable  to  Mississippi  and  Illi- 
nois. i  I  have  already  read  the  one  applying  to  Alabama. 

The  tilth  section  of  an  act  to  enable  the  people  of  the  western  part  of 
the  Mississippi  territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  government, 
etc.,  approved  March  1st,  1817,  is  as  follows: 

"  That  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within  said 
territory,  and  which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress  from  and  after  the  first 
day  of  December  next,  after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the  same, 
shall  be  reserved  for  making  public  roads  and  canals,  of  which  three- 
fifths  shall  be  applied  to  those  objects  within  the  said  state,  under  the 
direction  of  the  legislature  thereof,  and  two-fifths  to  the  making  of  a 
road  or  roads  leading  to  the  said  state,  under  the  direction  of  Con- 
gress." 

The  act  admitting  Illinois  into  the  Union,  entitled  "  An  act  to  enalle 
the  people  of  the  Illinois  territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  state  gov- 
ernment, and  for  the  admission  of  such  State  into  the  Union  on  an  equal 
footing  with  the  original  states,"  approved  April  18,  1818,  says  in  sec- 
tion sixth,  condition  third  : 

"  That  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within  such 
state,  and  which  shall  be  sold  by  Congress,  from  and  after  the  first  day 
of  January,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  nineteen,  after  deducting 
all  expenses  incident  to  the  same,  shall  be  reserved  for  the  purposes  fol- 
lowing, viz:  two-firths  to  be  disbursed,  under  the  direction  of  Congress, 
in  making  roads  leading  to  the  state,  the  residne  to  be  appropriated  by 
the  legislature  of  the  state,  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  of  which 
one  sixth  part  shall  be  exclusively  bestowed  on  a  college  or  university." 

The  sum  claimed  by  Illinois  has  already  been  appropriated  to  that 
State.  The  sixth  section  of  her  enabling  act  reserved  it  to  her.  Simi- 
lar provisions  in  the  enabling  acts  of  other  states,  or  in  the  nets  providing 
for  their  admission  into  the  Union,  reserved  a  like  sum  to  them  respec- 
tively. There  has  been  a  uniform  construction  given  by  the  General 
Government  to  the  provisions  reserving  the  five  per  cent,  to  (he  states, 
and  no  one  has  ever  doubted  that  those  of  them  in  which  public  lands 
were  located  are  legally  entitled  to  it.  In  cases  where  it  has  not  been 
paid  over,  it  remains  a  reserved  fund  in  the  United  States  Treasury,  as 
the  property  of  the  state,  and  the  law  of  1857,  which  attaches  itself  to 
the  provisions  setting  aside  and  reserving  it,  declares  "it  shall  be  allowed 
and  paid."  What  further  legislation  is  necessary?  Illinois  has  so 
much  money  in  the  National  Treasury,  and  the  law  says  to  the  propei 
accounting  officer  "state  her  account"  under  the  sixth  section  of  her 
enabling  act,  and  when  you  have  ascertained  the  amount  of  the  five  per 
cent,  on  her  public  lands  and  Indian  reservations,  if  only  three  parts  of 
it  has  been  paid  to  her,  pay  the  balance.  Is  it  possible  for  any  legisla- 
tion to  be  plainer?  The  laws  speak  for  themselves  and  plead  my  cause 
for  me,  not  with  dumb  and  silent  mouths,  but  living  voices  Congress 
has  done  its  duty.  If  public  officers  refuse  to  do  theirs,  hold  them  to  a 
proper  accountability  for  it.  Illinois  cannot  do  more  with  them  than  to 
send  up  into  their  ears  her  voice,  which  she  will  do,  in  vindication  of 


69 

her  rights  and  honor,  and  expects  to  be  heard  and  understood  when  she 
does  speak.  Her  great  interests  have  been  sported  with,  and  must  she 
remain  quiet  ?  Must  she  neglect  to  speak  for  her  rights,  and  speak 
p  ainly  ami  openly  ?  Candor  is  the  soul  of  honesty  and  truth.  Without 
it  they  are  the  priceless  treasures  of  Heaven  hidden  under  the  garb  of 
duplicity.  Illinois  always  talks  plain. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Hon.  Secretary  claims,  in  his  opinion,  that  not 
a  dollar  of  the  two  per  cent,  of  Illinois  has  been  diverted  from  the 
original  object  for  which  it  was  appropriated  by  Congress.  Was  it  a 
legal  and  proper  use  of  it  to  build  a  road  with  it,  leading  to  the  State, 
and  then  give  that  road  to  Indiana,  his  own  State,  as  was  done?  Was 
it  a  legal  and  proper  nse  of  it  to  squander  the  amount  on  detached  por- 
tions o|;  work  on  the  National  road  in  my  own  State,  and  then  abandon 
the  enterprise,  leaving  all  that  had  been  accomplished  in  a  useless  and 
worthless  condition  ?  If  such  is  the  lion.  Secretary's  legal  conclusion, 
and  it  seems  to  be,  I  must  differ  from  his  construction  of  the  6th  section 
of  the  act  admitting  Illinois  into  the  Union,  which  sets  apart  and 
reserves  to  the  State  five  per  cent,  on  her  public  lands,  and  provides 
that  two  parts  of  it  shall  be  expended  under  the  direction  of  Congress 
in  "making  roads  leading  to  the  State,"  not  in  making  a  road  and 
giving  it  to  Indiana,  not  in  making  an  attempt  to  build  a  road,  and  then 
abandoning  it,  but  to  " make  roads"  Where  is  the  road  "made"  for 
the  benefit  of  Illinois?  I  will  be  greatly  obliged  to  the  lion.  Secretary 
if  he  will  point  it  out,  and  so  will  my  State.  I  again  ask  where  is  it? 
Where  is  her  road?  Has  Indiana  got  it?  Is  there  the  trouble?  The 
Hon.  Secretary  entirely  overlooks  or  ignores  the  fact  that  after  the  road 
was  constructed  through  Indiana  to  the  border  of  Illinois  it  was  dona- 
ted by  Congress  to  his  own  State,  and  this,  in  his  view,  is  complying 
with  the  law! 

But  suppose  we  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  all  that  the  Hon. 
Secretary  has  said,  still  he  seems  to  have  forgotten  the  important  facts 
that  the  law  of  1857  was  passed  long  subsequent  to  all  acts  making 
appropriations  for  the  National  road,  and  that  that  law  is  the  last  mind 
of  the  Legislature,  and  is  consequently  to  govern.  The  mistake  he  has 
made  is  that  he  has  been  traveling  through  old  and  gloomy  sepulchres, 
looking  for  living  forms  where  none  exist.  He  speaks  through  the 
dead,  and  not  the  living.  The  law  of  1857  is  the  monumental  shaft 
which  rises  over  the  spot  where  lies  entombed  the  acts  reserving  the 
t\vo  per  cent,  fund  of  Illinois  for  the  purpose  of  constructing  the 
National  road,  and  upon  which  is  inscribed  the  epitaph,  "that  road 
belongs  to  Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Indiana — Illi- 
nois has  no  beneficial  part  or  lot  in  it." 

'In  short  the  whole  case  is  in  a  nnt  shell,  if  I  am  allowed  to  use  a 
western  phrase.  Mississippi  applied  to  Congress  for  an  act,  as  Alabama 
had  previously  done,  to  have  her  five  per  cent,  account  stated  under  her 
enabling  act,  and  proposed  that  her  Indian  reservations  should  be  inclu- 
ded in  it.  Congress  did  not  see  the  justice  or  propriety  of  those  states 
receiving  the  five  per  cent,  without  applying  the  same  principle  to  other 
states,  and  hence  amended  the  bill  of  Mr.  Brown  so  as  to  have  their  live 
per  cent  accounts  stated,  allowed  and  paid  upon  the  basis  that  "all 
lands  and  permanent  reservations  should  be  estimated  at  $1  25  per  acre." 

It  is  noticeable  that  the  Hon.  Secretary  does  not,  in  h;s  lengthy  opin- 


70 

ion,  attempt  to  discuss  the  law,  but  to  defeat  its  provisions,  and  debar 
my  State  of  her  rights  under  it,  by  thrusting  before  her  matters  which 
have  as  little  to  do  with  the  law  itself  as  they  have  with  the  moral  code. 
It  is  also  a  singular  fact,  that  of  all  the  legal  minds,  (and  some  of  them 
of  the  very  highest  order,)  to  whom  the  question  has  been  officially  or/ 
unofficially  submitted,  not  one  has  been  found  outside  of  the  Interior 
Department,  that  has  not  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  Illinois  is  enti- 
tled legally  to  the  benefits  I  claim  for  her. 

The  history  of  the  act  is  brief,  and  I  might  as  well  give  it,  as  it  will 
assist  in  the  elucidation  of  the  law.  The  thirty-fourth  Congress  organ- 
ized on  Monday,  the  4-th  of  March,  1856,  after  a  long  contest  in  the 
House  of  Representatives  for  the  election  of  Speaker,  which  resulted  in 
the  choice  of  Mr.  Banks.  On  that  day,  Mr.  Brown,  of  Mississippi, 
introduced  into  the  Senate  a  bill  to  settle  certain  accounts  of  Mississippi 
with  the  United  States.  (See  Senate  Journal,  first  .session,  34th  Con- 
gress, page  84:.)  The  bill  was  referred  to  the  committee  on  public  lands, 
(the  appropriate  committee,)  and  on  the  29th  of  April  they  reported  it 
back  with  an  amendment.  (See  Senate  Journal  of  same  Congress,  page 
290.)  It  passed  the  Senate  on  the  following  5th  of  May.  (See  Senate 
Journal,  page  304:.)  Mr.  Stuart,  of  Michigan,  was  the  member  of  the 
committee  who  reported  it  back,  its  passage  having  been  unanimously 
recommended.  Mr.  Brown  was  the  only  Senator  who  discussed  it,  and 
he  did  so  briefly.  I  will  read  all  that  was  said  and  done  at  the  time  of 
its  passage : 

"Mr.  BROWN  —  The  committee  on  public  lands  on  Thursday  last 
reported  back  the  bill  introduced  by  me  (S.  No.  4:)  to  settle  certain 
accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi.  The 
principle  on  which  it  is  based  has  already  been  settled  by  the  action  of 
Congress.  It  applies  to  my  State,  and  the  amendment  of  the  commit- 
tee embraces  like  interests  in  other  states.  I  ask  the  indulgence  of  the 
Senate  to  take  up  and  pass  it  now,  so  that  it  may  have  a  fair  opportunity 
of  getting  through  the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  present  session 
of  Congress.  If  it  embraced  any  new  principle  I  should  not  ask  to 
have  it  taken  up  now." 

The  motion  was  agreed  to,  and  the  Senate  proceeded,  as  a  committee 
of  the  whole,  to  consider  the  bill  which  proposes  to  direct  the  Commis- 
sioner of  the  General  Land  Office  to  state  an  account  between  the  Uni- 
ted States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining 
what  sum  or  sums  of  money  are  due  to  that  State,  heretofore  unsettled, 
on  account  of  public  lands,  and  upon  the  same  principles  of  allowance 
and  settlement  as  are  prescribed  in  the  "  Act  to  settle  certain  account^ 
between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Alabama,"  approved  March 
2,  1855.  He  is  to  include  in  the  account  the  several  reservations  under 
the  various  treaties  with  the  Chickasaw  and  Chocktaw  Indians  within 
the  limits  of  Mississippi,  and  allow  to  the  State  five  per  centum  thereon, 
as  in  case  of  other  sales,  estimating  the  lands  at  the  value  of  $1  25  per  acre. 

The  committee  on  public  lands  reported  the  following  amendment: 

And  le  it  further  enacted,  That  the  said  commissioner  shall  also  state 
an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the  other  states, 
upon  the  same  principles,  and  shall  allow  and  pay  to  each  State  such 
amount  as  shall  thus  be  found  due,  estimating  all  lands  and  permanent 
reservations  at  $1  25  per  acre. 


71 

The  amendment  was  agreed  to ;  the  bill  was  reported  to  the  Senate 
as  amended,  and  the  amendment  was  concurred  in.  The  bill  was 
ordered  to  be  engrossed  for  a  third  reading,  was  read  the  third  time  and 
passed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Stuart,  the  title  was  amended  so  as  to  read,  "  A 
bill  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State 
of  Mississippi  and  other  states."  •  ",  • 

It  will  be  perceived  that  Mr.  Brown  says  the  bill  embraced  no  new 
principle.  The  payment  of  the  live  per  cent,  to  the  states  had  long 
been  acquiesced  in  and  was  no  new  principle.  Hence  there  can  be  no 
misapprehension  of  the  legislative  mind — and  what  was  intended  to  be 
and  was  provided  for.  It  was  the  payment  of  the  five  per  cent. 

It  will  also  be  noted  that  he  definitely  states  that  the  bill  provided  for 
the  settlement  of  certain  accounts — not  for  the  settlement  of  an  account 
between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Mississippi,  and  that  the 
amendment  of  the  committee  "  embraces  like  interests  " — not  interests 
in  other  states.  This  explanation  of  the  bill  clearly  shows  the  under- 
standing the  introducer  of  it  had — the  understanding  the  committee  on 
public  lands  and  the  Senate  had  of  it.  Its  terms  were  so  just  to  Mis- 
sissippi and  "other  states,"  and  its  provisions  so  unmistakable  that  no 
one  doubted  them,  or  attempted  to  give  any  other  interpretation  to  the 
act.  All  understood  it  as  relating  to  the  five  per  cent,  to  be  paid  on 
public  lands  sold,  and  on  Indian  reservations. 

The  bill  underwent  the  rigid  scrutiny  of  the  Senate  committee  on 
public  lands,  who  would  not  consent  to  its  passage  until  they  had  so 
amended  it  as  to  place  the  "other  states"  on  an  equal  footing  with 
Alabama  and  Mississippi  in  respect  to  the  five  per  cent.  After  it  reached 
the  House  it  was  referred  to  the  judiciary  committee,  reported  back  by 
them,  and  its  passage  unanimonsly  recommended.  A  brief  explanation 
was  made  of  the  Indian  reservation  feature  of  it  by  Mr.  Lake  of  Mis- 
sis^ippi,  the  rules  were  suspended,  and  it  passed  that  body  on  such  sus- 
pension of  the  rules. 

The  Hon.  Interior  Secretary  refers,  in  his  opinion,  to  the  payment  of 
the  five  per  cent,  to  Arkansas,  Iowa,  Kansas,  Louisiana,  Michigan,  Min- 
nesota, Wisconsin  and  Oregon,  and  leaves  it  to  be  inferred  that  special 
laws  were  passed  by  Congress,  appropriating  that  fund  to  the  respective 
states  named.  Such  is  not  the  fact.  All  had  it  set  directly  apart  to 
them,  and  placed  under  the  control  of  their  respective  legislatures  by 
their  enabling  acts,  or  the  acts  providing  for  their  admission  into  the 
Union.  Louisiana  was  the  first  State  thus  dealt  with.  Subsequently 
Congress  changed  its  policy  and  reserved  two-fifths  of  the  five  per  cent, 
to  be  expended  under  its  own  direction,  and  applied  this  restrictipn  to 
Mississippi,  Alabama,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Indiana,  etc.,  as  it  had  before 
applied  it  to  Ohio.  In  1836,  the  restriction  was  not  imposed  on  Arkan- 
sas or  Michigan,  when  they  came  into  the  Union,  nor  has  it  been  upon 
any  new  State  since  that  period,  thus  showing  the  tact  that  the  general 
government  became  more  and  more  liberal  in  her  dealings  with  the 
younger  members  of  the  confederacy,  as  was  entirely  proper. 

A  portion  of  the  states  receiving  directly  the  whole  Jive  per  cent,  to  be 
expended  under  the  direction  of  their  own  legislatures,  it  led  first  to 
special  legislation,  to  give  its  control  to  other  states  which  fad  not  received 
all  of  it,  and  finally  culminated  in  the  general  law  of  1857. 


72 

The  lion.  Secretary  Fays:  "It  is  truly  said  in  argument  by  Mr.  Mor- 
rie,  that  the  two  per  cent,  has  been  paid  to  Missouri,  and  he  expresses 
the  opinion  that  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  conclusion  that  Missouri 
was  entitled  to  it,  support  with  equal  force  the  claim  of  the  State  of 
Illinois.  There  is  this  essential  difference  between  the  two  cases:  the 
payment  to  Missouri  was  made  in  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  an 
act  approved  February  28,  1859." 

I  did  make  the  statement  attributed  to  me,  when  discussing  the  ques- 
tion of  the  National  road,  as  a  matter  of  contemporaneous  history,  show- 
ing that  Illinois  has  derived  no  more  benefit  from  it  than  Missouri— not 
in  the  sense  in  which  the  Hon.  Secretary  interprets  it.  JJut  I  also 
stated  in  my  report,  that  because  a  State  was  driven  to  the  necessity  of 
procuring  the  passage  of  a  special  act,  to  obtain  rights  she  was  denied 
by  reluctant  officers,  that  did  not  deprive  Illinois  of  her  rights  under 
the  act  of  1857.  Will  the  Hon.  Secretary  say  he  thinks  it  does?  Let 
us  reduce  the  argument  to  the  form  of  a  syllogism.  Missouri  was  enti- 
tled to  two  per  cent  for  road  purposes  on  her  public  lands;  Missouri 
got  her  two  per  cent,  under  a  law  passed  in  1859,  therefore  Illinois  has 
no  right  to  her  two  per  cent,  under  the  act  of  1857.  It  is  by  such 
arguments  as  these  that  my  State  is  denied  justice  by  the  Interior 
Department. 

There  is  one  other  point  touching  the  act  of  1857,  which  I  will  notice 
and  then  dismiss  that  branch  of  the  subject.  The  Hon.  Secretary  says: 

"Mr.  Mori-is  is  of  opinion  that  the  decision  of  a  former  Secretary  of 
the  Interior  favors  his  construction  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1857.  The 
point  involved  in  tiio  appeal  from  your  office,  and  submitted  to  the 
determination  of  Secretary  Thompson,  was,  whether  lands  located 
•within  the  State  of  Mississippi  to  satisfy  certain  Chocktaw  scrip  issued 
under  the  acts  of  Congress  of  August  23,  18±2,  and  August  3,  18-16, 
•were  within  the  beneficial  provisions  of  the  act  of  1857. 

He  decided  that  such  lands,  in  adjusting  the  accounts  of  that  State, 
"arc  to  be  regarded  as  constituting  a  portion  of  the  several  reservations 
under  the  various  treaties  with  the  Chocktaw  and  Chickasaw  Indians." 

The  same  principle  of  adjustment,  the  second  section  of  the  act  now 
under  discussion,  extends  to  be  applied  in  the  settlement  of  the  five  per 
cent,  accounts  of  the  "other  states." 

The  Hon.  Secretary's  quotation  from  the  opinion  of  his  predecessor, 
or  rather  a  partial  synopsis  of  and  abstract  from  it,  evidently  furnished 
by  one  of  his  clerks,  proves  altogether  too  much  to  sustain  his  position. 
After  disposing  of  the  case  before  him  under  the  iirst  section  of  the  act, 
Mr.  Thompson  says:  "This  same  principle  of  adjustment,  the  second 
section  of  the  act  now  under  consideration  extends  to  be  applied  in  the 
settlement  of  the  live  per  cent,  accounts  of  oilier  states."  Yes,  "the 
settlement  of  the  five  per  cent,  accounts  of  other  states!"  But  §Mr. 
Thompson  says  more  in  his  opinion  which  the  Hon.  Secretary  does  not 
think  proper  to  quote,  lie  adds  immediately  after  the  foregoing  words 
"thus  as  regards  justice  and  right,  Alabama  and  Mississippi  are  entitled 
to  a  liberal  construction  of  the  acts  of  Congress  of  March  3,  1855.  and 
March  3,  1857,  and  as  a  matter  of  equity  between  these  two  states  as 
claimants  against  the  United  States  and  as  between  them  and  the  other 
states  of  the  Union,  all  are  entitled  to  the  same  equal  and  liberal  con- 


73 

struction  in  carrying  the  act  of  1857"  into  effect."  I  submit  then  I  was 
right  in  saying  that  Mr.  Thompson's  opinion  sustains  my  construction 
of  the  law.  Had  the  Hon.  Secretary  turned  to  the  records  of  the  Gen- 
eral Land  Office,  he  would  have  found  another  opinion  there  recorded, 
that  of  the  Hon.  Thomas  A.  Hendricks,  of  his  own  State,  formerly 
commissioner  of  that  office  and  now  a  United  States  Senator,  a  gentle- 
man of  the  highest  legal  ability,  which  also  sustains  my  construction. 

The  Hon.  Secretary  adopts  the  opinion  of  his  predecessor,  that  lands 
located  with  Indian  scrip  are  to  be  treated  as  lands  sold,  but  there  he 
stops,  and  does  not  give  the  same  liberal  and  proper  construction  to  the 
act  of  1857,  which  Mr.  Thompson  said  applied  to  the  settlement  of  the 
five  per  cent,  accounts — not  account  of  the  other  states.  The  one  is  in 
favor  of  placing  the  "  other  states  "  on  an  equality  with  Alabama  and 
Mississippi — by  giving  to  them  the  five  per  cent,  on  their  public  lands, 
and  on  their  Indian  reservations  the  same  as  Alabama  and  Mississippi 
received,  but  the  other  says  Illinois  has  no-  such  claim  to  equality  of 
rights.  Ala's  for  poor  Illinois ;  true  and  loyal  as  she  is,  she  finds  the 
Interior  Department  slamming  the  door  of  public  justice  in  her  face. 
Although  she  has  spoken  through  her  press,  her  governor,  her  judges, 
her  State  officers,  her  Legislature  and  her  Congressmen,  their  united 
voices  are  treated  as  only  the  distant  inurmurings  of  fraudulent  demands, 
engendered  in  wrong  motives  and  a  clouded  intellect.  Must  she  rest 
under  the  implied  imputation  that  she  can  neither  present  an  honest 
claim  or  understand  her  rights?  It  is  her  privilege  and  duty  to  insist 
that  because  the  act  of  1857  includes  Indian  reservations,  it  does  not 
necessarily,  as  the  Honorable  Secretary  seems  to  suppose  and  assume, 
exclude  every  other  object,  purpose  and  thing.  This  will  be  the  more 
apparent  when  we  remember  that  Mr.  Thompson,  a  former  secretary, 
determined  that  the  law  of  1857  extended  to  be  applied  to  the  five  per 
cent,  account*  of  the  other  states,  whereas  the  acting  secretary,  who 
relies  upon  his  opinion  misquotes  it,  and  makes  him  use  the  word 
"  account,"  which  he  did  not  use — a  word  essentially  different  from 
accounts  used  in  the  law.  To  state  "an  account"  is  quite  a  different 
thing  to  stating  "accounts"  as  the  law  requires. 

Mr.  President,  the  Honorable  Secretary  does  not  rest  his  case  upon 
his  construction  of  the  act  of  1857.  He  evidently  distrusts  that  ground 
himself,  or  else  why  has  he  labored  to  show  that  Illinois  has  already 
received  her  two  per  cent,  in  expenditures  on  the  National  road,  thus 
by  inference,  casting  upon  her  the  imputation  that  she  is  trying  to  palm 
off  a  fraud  on  the  general  government,  which  I  repel  as  unfounded. 

One  of  two  things  is  certain.  She  is  either  entitled  to  the  payment 
of  her  demand  under  the  act  of  1 8,57,  without  regard  to  the  expenditures 
i  eferred  to,  or  she  is  not  entitled  fo  receive  it  without  further  legislation. 
This  I  freely  admit.  Perhaps  the  same  reason,  (or  it  may  have  been 
some  other  one,  and  if  so,  it  makes  no  difference)  which  led  to  the  pas- 
sage of,  .the  act  of  1859,  for  the  benefit  of  Missouri,  may  have  led 
'  (indeed  I  am'  told  'it  di3)  to  the  passa'ge  of  the  acts  of  1855  and  1857, 
namely,  that  government  officers  refusing  to  do  their  duty  under  previ- 
ous laws  it  is  often  more  expeditious  and  pleasant  to  procure  the  passage 
of  another  law,  to  avoid  their  objections,  than  it  is  to  contend  with 
them. 

—8 


74 

It  is  often  said  that  the  United  States  is  the  most  unjust  government 
in  the  world  towards  her  honest  creditors — that  her  officers  labor  to 
evade,  and  not  to  execute  a  law  appropriating  money  to  discharge  exist- 
ing obligations.  However  this  may  be,  the  act  of  1857  is  so  full  and 
complete  in  its  terms,  that  Illinois  rests  her  claim  upon  it  with  the  con- 
fident expectation  of  having  it  allowed  and  paid.  It  may  safely  be 
asserted  that  if  the  general  government  never  quibbled,  caviled  or 
sported  with  the  interest  of  a  State,  but  always  dealt  frankly  and  fairly 
with  her  it  would  be  far  more  likely  to  secure  her  enduring  and  affec- 
tionate confidence.  It  ought  always  to  be  liberal  and  magnanimous, 
but  more  especially  equally  just  in  its  dealings  with  all  the  statet. 

The  Honorable  Secretary  states  that  the  case  of  Illinois  differs  from 
that  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi  in  that  the  16th  and  17th  sections  of 
the  act  of  1841  "relinquished"  to  those  states  the  two  per  cent.  fund. 
The  act  of  1857  did  precisely  for  Illinois  what  the  act  of  1841  did  for 
Alabama  and  Mississippi,  namely :  granted  to  her  the  right  to  possess 
and  control  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  but  the  whole  interests  of  all  the  states 
was  covered  by  the  mare  comprehensive  act  of  1857.  It  is  insisted  that 
that  fund  was  retained  in  the  treasury  to  replace  appropriations  out  of 
it  for  the  National  road.  How  could  this  be  until  the  account  was 
stated,  for  until  then  there  was  no  fund  in  the  treasury  out  of  which  to 
replace  it.  The  fact  is,  that  at  the  very  time  of  the  appropriations 
referred  to  by  the  Honorable  Secretary,  no  such  fund,  in  any  amount, 
existed  anywhere,  for  but  few  of  the  public  lands  in  Illinois  had  then 
been  sold.  When  it  did  accumulate  in  the  treasury,  it  remained  a 
reserved  fund  until  the  act  of  1857  vested  it  in  the  State,  for  up  to  that 
time,  nor  since,  has  there  been  an  account  stated  by  which  to  determine 
the  sum  due  the  state,  or  with  which  she  was  to  be  charged,  if  anything. 

But  granting  that  the  fund  that  existed  has  been  exhausted,  let  us 
examine  the  modes  by  which  it  is  said  to  have  been  absorbed,  and  see 
whether  Illinois  has  been  fairly  and  equitably  dealt  by. 

I  will  not  again  travel  over  the  whole  question  of  expenditures  on 
account  of  the  National  road.  That  point  I  pretty  fully  discussed  in  a 
report  to  Governor  Yates,  submitted  in  April  last,  copies  of  which  I 
sent  to  your  Excellency.  The  opinion  of  the  Honorable  Secretary  pre- 
sents no  new  feature  in  the  aspect  of  the  question,  nor  has  he  ventured 
upon  an  assault,  in  direct  terms,  on  Illinois'  equitable  rights,  though  his 
data,  unexplained,  will  leave  the  impression  she  has  not  much  equity. 
For  instance,  he  states  her  two  per  cent,  fund  amounts  to  $474,000  00 — 
that  $606,000  00  was  appropriated  to  be  expended  on  the  National  roW 
in  that  State — that  the  work  done  upon  it  in  Illinois,  Congress  has 
relinquished  to  that  State,  and  therefore  he  thinks  the  conclusion  must 
follow  that  she  has  no  just  claim. 

The  unfairness  of  arriving  at  results  in  this  way  is  very  transparent. 

Let  us  look  at  the  facts.  Some  of  them  have  been  stated  by  the 
Honorable  Secretary,  if  not  entirely  accurately,  at  least  enough  so  for 
all  useful  purposes.  Some  he  has  altogether  omitted,  which  it  is  neces- 
sary to  know,  before  there  can  be  a  full  and  proper  understanding  of 
the  subject.  He  states  that  the  act 'of  May  15,  1820,  provides  that 
three  commissioners  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President  to  lay  out  a 
road  between  Wheeling,  in  Virginia,  and  the  Mississippi  river,  termina- 


75 

ting  at  a  point  between  St.  Louis  and  the  mouth  of  the  Illinois  river — 
that  it  was  declared  in  the  act  that  nothing  contained  therein  should  be 
so  construed  as  obligating  the  United  States  to  make  the  road.  This  is 
all  so,  but  what  of  it  ?  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  Honorable  Secretary 
leaves  the  inference  to  be  drawn  that  the  United  States  never  placed 
itself  under  any  obligation  to  construct  the  road  through  Illinois — that 
she  was  only  bound  to  enter  the  State  and  expend  the  two  per  cent, 
fund.  This,  to  say  the  least,  Mr.  President,  is  rather  unfair  towards 
your  State  and  mine,  for  subsequently  Congress,  from  time  to  time, 
gave  additional  assurance  that  the  road  was  to  pass  throrgh  Illinois  to 
the  capital  of  Missouri,  and  made  appropriations  for  that  object.  If 
she  never  gave  such  assurance  she  never  fulfilled,  even  on  the  basis  of 
the  I^onorable  Secretary's  reasoning,  any  part  of  her  obligation.  The 
general  government  kept  its  faith  with  Indiana  and  Ohio,  as  stated  in 
my  report,  but  it  never  kept  its  faith  with  Illinois  and  Missouri.  A 
sum  which  the  Honorable  Secretary  states  to  be  $606,000,  was  wasted 
in  Illinois,  on  detached  parcels  of  work,  but  the  road  was  never  finished, 
indeed  hardly  commenced,  nor  did  the  State  ever  derive  any  benefit 
from  it.  The  reservation  of  the  two  per  cent.  Jund  was  based  upon  the 
ground  that  the  road  would  be  constructed.  la  the  enabling  act  it 
was  "reserved"  to  construct  roads  leading  to  the  State.  Illinois  has 
never  received  the  benefit  of  any  road,  constructed  or  to  be  constructed, 
as  contemplated  by  law.  There  can  be  no  pretence  that  she  has. 
Hence  Illinois  has  as  strong  an  equitable  claim  to-day  to  that  fund  as 
she  ever  had.  I  think  it  would  have  been  nothing  more  than  right  for 
the  Honorable  Secretary  to  have  stated  these  facts  and  made  this 
acknowledgment.  I  admitted  in  my  report  to  Governor  Yates  that 
something  more  had  been  expended  in  Illinois  on  the  National  road 
than  the  two  per  cent.,  but  insisted  that  as  the  State  had  got  no  road 
"leading  to  it,"  or  within  her  limits,  nothing  but  the  valueless  remains 
ot  an  abortive  effort  to  build  one,  the  whole  ground  for  retaining  the 
money  had  failed.  Was  I  not  right? 

There  was  expended  upon  the  road  in  Ohio  about  two  and  a  quarter 
million  dollars,  five  times,  at  least  the  amount  of  her  two  per  cent,  fund, 
and  in  Indiana  about  one  and  a  quarter  million,  nearly  three  times  as 
much  as  her  two  per  cent,  fund,  while  the  sum  of  $606,000  00,  men- 
tioned, by  the  Honorale  Secretary,  only  exceeds  the  two  per  cent,  of 
Illinois  in  the  comparatively  pitiful  amount  of  $132,000  00.  Besides, 
Ohio  and  Indiana  got  those  parts  of  the  road  within  their  limits,  they 
being  given  to  them  by  special  acts  of  Congress,  and  for  many  years 
have  bad  toll-gatherers  upon  them,  and  at  the  bridges,  thus  deriving  a 
revenue  from  them,  while  Illinois  obtained  nothing  oj'  any  value.  In 
this  state  of  fact  it  is  hardly  juit  to  leave  the  impression,,  as  the  opinion 
of  the  Honorable  Secretary  will  be  understood,  that  Illinois  stands  upon 
the  same  ground  in  respect  to  the  National  road  that  Ohio  and  Indiana 
do.  Let  me  repeat,  is  it  just  for  a  report  to  find  its  way  into  the  news- 
papers from  the  Interior  Department,  to  furnish  evidence  of  its  rigid 
justice,  impartiality  and  watchful  economy !  that  Illinois  stands  upon 
the  same  footing,  in  respect  to  the  National  road,  with  Ohio  and 
Indiana  ?  Is  it  just  for  Ohio  or  Indiana  to  now  say  to  Illinois  "  you 
have  no  equity — no  legal  rights.''  "get  ye  behind  me,  I  know  ye  not?" 


76 

The  truth  is,  that  the  provisions  reserving  the  two  per  cent,  road  fund 
of  the  states  in  the  laws  appropriating  money  for  the  National  road — a 
road  that  was  advocated  and  supported  on  the  ground  it  was  to  be  a 
military  road,  over  which  was  to  be  transported  men  and  munitions  of 
war,  and  was  to  increase  the  value  of  the  public  lands — are  mere  baga- 
telles inserted  in  the  acts  to  catch  the  votes  of  members  who  did  not 
believe  that  Congress  had  the  constitutional  power  to  appropriate  money 
out  of  the  National  Treasury  tor  any  such  object.  The  fallacy  of  the 
whole  thing  is  clearly  apparent  when  we  remember  that  nearly  seven 
million  of  dollars  was  expended  upon  that  road,  and  the  entire  sum  was 
to  be  replaced  out  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois 
and  Missouri,  when  that  fund  is  less  than  two  million! 

There  was  expended  upon  the  road  in  Ohio  and  Indiana  alone  about 
two  and  three-quarter  million  of  dollars  more  than  the  entire  amount 
of  their  two  per  cent,  fund,  and  very  nearly  two  million  more  than  the 
entire  aggregate  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois  and 
Missouri  combined.  The  two  per  cent,  of  Illinois  having  thus  been 
absorbed  by  the  expenditures  in  Ohio  and  Indiana,  those  states  are 
enjoying  the  benefit  of  it,  Congress  having,  as  I  have  already  said, 
given  them  the  portions  of  the  road  lying  within  their  respective  limits. 
This  is  truly  a  consoling  reflection  to  Illinois!  She  ought  to  be  grateful 
that  her  citizens  are  taxed  by  Indiana  for  traveling  over  a  road  which 
her  own  money  has  assisted  to  construct ! 

But  the  Honorable  Secretary  says  Illinois,  too,  had  the  work  done 
within  her  boundaries  granted  to  her  by  Congress  in  1856 — a  period 
twenty  years  after  all  labor  upon  it  had  ceased,  and  of  course  up  to  that 
period  Congress  claimed  its  ownership  and  control,  as  is  evidenced  by 
the  very  grant  itself.  It  would  have  been  more  proper  for  him  to  have 
said  that  Congress,  by  a  law  of  that  date,  voluntarily  proposed  to 
appoint  Illinois  administrator  de  bonis  non  upon  a  few  wasted  and 
crumbling  embankments,  ruined  culverts  and  rotten  bridges.  The  State 
respectfully  declines  the  office. 

In  the  matter  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Missouri,  Mr.  Tappan, 
from  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  House  submitted  on  the  29th  of 
May,  1858,  a  printed  report.  After  giving  the  provision  of  the  enabling 
act  of  that  State,  setting  apart  the  five  per  cent.,  and  which  is  similar 
to  the  one  for  Illinois,  except  that  three  parts  of  it  were  taken  by  Illi- 
nois for  educational  purposes  while  Missouri  took  her  three  parts  for  1|he 
purpose  of  improving  her  internal  communications,  says : 

"That  part  of  the  fund  which  it  is  contemplated  by  this  article  shall 
be  applied  by  the  State  to  improving  its  internal  communications  has 
been  duly  paid  over  by  the  government  of  the  United  States.  But  the 
two  per  cent,  received  by  the  United  States  in  trust,  to  be  applied  to 
communications  leading  to  the  State  have  not  been  so  applied.  The 
trust  has  not,  therefore,  been  duly  discharged,  and  the  money  which 
the  article  recognizes  as  the  property  of  the  State,  and  to  be  applied  for 
its  benefit,  •should  be  accounted  for  to  the  State  by  the  government  of 
the  United  States.  The  two  per  cent,  fund  in  question  belonged  to  the 
State,  and  the  interest  of  the  Federal  government  wras  but  that  of  a 
trustee,  and  the  sole  reason  for  the  arrangement  was,  that  as  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  had  authority  outside  of  the  limits  of  the 


77 

State,  which  the  State  did  not  possess,  it  could  apply  that  portion  of  the 
fund  intended  to  facilitate  communication  to  and  from  the  -State  and 
promote  its  external  commerce  better  than  the  State  itself  could  do.  If 
the  terms  of  the  article  itself  admitted  of  any  question  that  this  was 
the  nature  of  the  interest  of  the  State  in  this  fund,  the  original  of  this 
provision,  which  is  found  in  the  corresponding  article  of  the  7th  section 
of  the  act  of  30th  of  April,  1802,  2d  Statutes,  page  175,  entitled  "An 
act  to  enable  the  people  of  the  eastern  division  of  the  territory  north 
west  of  the  river  Ohio,  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government," 
etc.,  in  which  it  is  expressly  admitted  that  the  five  per  cent,  was  given 
to  the  State  as  the  consideration  for  the  exemption  of  the  lands  of  the 
United  States  within  its  limits  from  taxation,  would  be  conclusive  on 
the  point.  This  was  certainly  a  small  consideration  for  the  release  by 
the  State  of  a  right  to  tax  forty  million  acres  of  government  lands 
within  its  limits,  and  there  is,  therefore,  the  more  reason  why  it  should 
be  certainly  and  fully  paid  according  to  the  agreement  between  the 
parties,  or  accounted  for  to  the  State,  if  the  purpose  to  which  it  was  to 
be  devoted  under  the  agreement  between  the  parties  has  been  aban- 
doned. That  purpose  was  the  construction  of  a  road  (the  Cumberland 
road  was  intended)  to  the  boundary  of  Missouri,  a  purpose  which  has 
long  since  been  abandoned,  and  the  government  should  therefore  deal 
with  Missouri  as  it  has  dealt  with  Mississippi  and  Alabama  under  simi- 
lar circumstances — direct  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  which  was  reserved 
for  the  purpose  thus  abandoned,  to  be  paid  to  the  State." 

The  same  reasoning  which  was  applied  to  Missouri  applies  with  equal 
force  to  Illinois.  She  obtained  no  road  to  her  border  such  as  was  con- 
templated in  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  providing  for  her  admission 
into  the  Union !  That  road  was  to  be  a  FREE  public  highway  or 
otherwise  it  was  a  mockery  for  the  general  government  to  reserve  two 
per  cent,  of  her  money  to  build  it.  Congress  continued  to  hold  and 
Control  the  Cumberland  or  National  road  as  government  property  until, 
by  its  special  grants,  the  respective  parts  of  it  lying  within  the  limits  of 
Maryland,  Pennsylvania,  Virginia,  Ohio  and  Indiana  were  given  to 
those  states ;  since  which  they  have  possessed,  enjoyed  and  controlled 
them  as  their  own  private  property.  A  private  turnpike  in  Indiana, 
upon  which  citizens  of  Illinois  are  compelled  to  pay  toll,  is  certainly  not 
such  a  road  as  the  State  was  entitled  to— not  a  free  road  leading  TO  her 
border.  But  as  I  have  heretofore  discussed  this  point,  and  my  arguments 
not  only  remain  unanswered,  but  no  attempt  having  been  made  to 
answer  them,  I  deem  it  unnecessary  to  elucidate  it  further. 

Nor,  Mr.  President,  will  I  discuss  the  whole  question  of  the  National 
road  further.  I  have  never  discussed  it  except  as  a  matter  of  contem- 
poraneous history,  bearing  upon  the  equitable  character  of  the  claim  of 
Illinois.  The  three  per  cent,  fund  granted  to  the  State,  in  her  enabling 
act,  for  educational  purposes,  which  has  also  been  discussed  by  the 
Honorable  Secretary,  was  in  no  way  involved  in  the  claim  I  made  in 
behalf  of  my  State  for  the  two  per  cent.,  nor  have  I  said  anything 
about  or  had  anything  to  do  with  it. 

The  following  conclusions  from  the  premises  which  I  have  laid  down 
are  inevitable : 

First.  That  your  Excellency  is  authorized  to  review  the  decision  of 
your  subordinate. 


78 

Second.  That  the  character  of  the  refusal  of  the  Commissioner  of 
the  General  Land  Office  is  such  as  to  make  it  positively  obligatory  on 
your  Excellency  to  see  that  the  law,  requiring  an  account  to  be  stated, 
of  the  five  per  cent,  on  the  public  lands  and  Indian  reservations,  and 
the  balance  due  thereon  paid,  that  is  the  two  per  cent.,  is  executed. 

Third.  That  the  Honorable  Secretary  has  not  properly  stated  his 
case. 

I  freely  admit  the  superior  ability  of  the  Honorable  Secretary,  but  it 
is  not  in  his  power  or  that  of  any  other  man  to  overthrow  truth,  which 
"  is  mighty  even  to  the  pulling  down  of  strongholds." 

It  is  claimed  by  some  that  the  opinion  of  the  Honorable  Secretary  is 
the  ablest  ever  rendered  in  the  Interior  Department.  However,  this 
may  be,  the  real  and  only  question  before  him,  he  dismissed  in  ten  lines, 
by  simply  arriving  at  the  conclusion  that  Indian  reservations  were  to 
be  treated  as  lands  sold  and  the  per  cent,  on  them  included  in  the 
accounts  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi  stated  under-  the  law  of  1841,  and 
therefore  Illinois  had  no  rights  under  the  act  of  1857 !  How  strange 
that  this  intellectual  result  should  be  regarded  as  conclusive  against  the 
claim  of  my  State  !  All  the  balance  of  the  opinion  is  properly  extra- 
neous matter. 

1  have  not,  I  am  aware,  carried  out  my  premises  and  arguments  to 
all  their  logical  deductions,  for  it  was  wholly  unnecessary  to  do  it.  All 
I  have  aimed  at  was  to  place  the  validity  of  the  claim  of  my  State 
beyond  doubt,  and  I  hope  I  have  accomplished  that  much.  Almost  an 
inexhaustible  fountain  of  reasons,  justifying  and  requiring  its  payment, 
I  have  not  explored.  Illinois  cannot  be  expected  to  sit  down  quietly 
under  an  act  of  injustice.  Trouble  between  the  general  government 
and  the  State,  growing  out  of  a  refusal  of  the  former  to  liquidate  the 
amount,  which  may  and  I  think  will  spring  up  between  them  unless  it 
is  settled,  ought,  by  all  means,  to  be  avoided.  The  State  has  given 
sufficient  evidence  of  her  earnest  in  the  prosecution  of  her  demand,  and 
will  exhaust  every  proper  means  before  she  yields  her  rights.  But  why 
put  her  to  additional  trouble  and  expense  to  get  them?  I  am  sure  your 
Excellency  will  not  do  so.  The  claim  might  as  well  be  settled  now  as 
at  a  future  day. 

Mr.  President,  I  am  now  through.  This  is  the  last  application  I  can 
make  to  the  Executive  Department  to  execute  the  laws,  for  I  have 
reached  the  original  source  of  power.  It  i&  hard,  indeed,  that  a  sove- 
reign and  loyal  state  should  be  forced  to  fight  her  way  over  every  inch 
of  ground,  encounter  every  species  of  hostility  and  opposition,  and  meet 
every  kind  of  embarrassment  which  talent,  state  jealousy  and  ingenuity 
can  invent,  when  she  is  only  asking  for  that  which  is  justly  her  due, 
upon  every  consideration,  legal  and  equitable,  and  which  should  be 
granted  freely,  willingly,  without  stint,  grudging  or  quibble. 

The  result,  Mr,  President,  is  with  you.  I  repeat  what  I  have  said 
before,  "  it  is  to  you  the  State  looks  for  the  fulfillment  of  her  too  long 
delayed  rights."  It  was  to  you  the  Legislature  addressed  their  memo- 
rials. The  law  and  the  argument  are  certainly  on  the  State's  side.  The 
power  to  disregard  them,  I  admit,  rests  with  your  ministerial  officer, 
unless  you  overrule  him.  "Will  you  suffer  the  State  to  be  repulsed  ? 
Will  you  turn  her  away  to  seek  redress  from  other  sources,  and  forever 


79 

shut  the  doors  of  Executive  justice  against  her?  Will  you  have  no 
share"  in  the  reward  of  her  gratitude  ?  If  you  do  not  uphold  and  vindi- 
cate her  rights,  to  whom  can  she  look  ?  Whatever  may  be  your  deter- 
mination, I  shall  bcw,  as  the  agent  of  the  State,  respectfully  to  it.  I 
know  it  is  not  in  your  heart  to  do  Illinois  an  intentional  wrong,  and  I 
believe  you  can  and  will,  with  firmness,  do  her  justice — that  you  will 
take  the  responsibility  of  dealing  fairly  with  her.  Her  people  expect  it, 
and  will  be  greatly  disappointed  if  you  do  not  sustain  your  view  of  the 
law,  which  you  admit  to  be  with  them,  and  which  the  Honorable  Inte- 
rior Secretary  has  admitted  to  be  with  them,  and  said  his  assistant 
thought  the  case  a  very  strong  one  for  the  State.  All  their  hopes  are 
centered  in  you,  and  now  is  the  propitious  moment  to  give  them  their 
rights — if  not  now  they  may  well  ask  when?  The  opportunity  lost  can- 
not be* regained.  Now  is  the  time,  or  never.  The  claim  of  the  State  is 
founded  in  law  and  right.  No  stronger  or  more  just  one  was  ever  pre- 
sented against  the  National  Treasury:  Let  it  be  allowed.  Let  the  Ex- 
ecutive will  speak  out  and  prevail  over  the  will  of  the  subordinate.  £iat 
jvxtitia  mat  coslum. 

Finally,  in  conclusion,  Mr.  President,  I  would  do  injustice  to  my  own 
feelings  if  I  failed  to  add  that  I  thank  you  for  the  courtesy  you  have 
uniformly  shown  me  throughout  my  protracted  and  troublesome  labors 
in  prosecuting  the  claim  of  my  State — I  thank  you  for  your  respectful 
attention  to  my  remarks  to  day — for  the  frankness  and  candor  with 
which  you  have  uniformly  treated  the  interest  of  Illinois  confided  to  my 
care,  and  especially  for  your  decided  order  to  the  Interior  Department 
to  take  up  the  case  and  act  upon  it.  It  seemed  hermetically  sealed  up 
there  until  you  opened  its  prison  doors  and  let  it  out,  thus  enabling  the 
State  to  gain  one  step  in  advance,  however  wrong  the  decision  that  was 
made.  It  certainly  affords  good  cause  for  congratulation  that  the  block- 
ade has  been  removed. 

r 

OPINION   OF   HON.  REVERDY   JOHNSON. 

The  preliminary  question  on  the  appeal  to  the  President,  in  the  mat- 
ter of  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  on  which  he  desires  an  argument, 
is  whether  such  an  appeal  can  be  legally  had  ?  The  following  observa- 
tions are,  therefore,  respectfully  submitted  on  the  point : 

I.  On  principle. 

By  the  constitution,  the  entire  Executive  power  of  the  government  is 
vested  in  the  President,  except  in  such  cases  as  are  otherwise  specially 
provided  for.  The  language  ot  the  second  article  is,  "  The  Executive 
power  shall  be  vested  in  a  President,"  etc. 

The  term  "the,"  as  here  used,  clearly  means  that  all  such  power,  with 
the  exceptions  referred  to,  is  in  the  President,  and  the  term  "shall" 
means  that  it  is  not  to  be  vested  in  any  other  branch  of  the  government. 
It  necessarily  excludes  all  other  branches. 

II.  By  the  third  section  of  the  same  article,  the  President  is  to 
v  "  commission  all  the  officers  of  the  United  States,"  and  "  take  care  that 

the  laws  be  faithfully  executed."  The  execution  of  the  laws  is  thus  ex- 
pressly made  an  executive  duty.  The  President,  and  no  one  else,  is,  in 
terms,  made  directly  and  ultimately  responsible  for  that  result — an  un- 


80 

faithful  execution  of,  or  a  total  failure  to  execute,  the  laws  by  any  execu- 
tive officer  holding  his  appointment  under  the  President,  is  a  wrong  to 
be  especially  redressed  by  the  President.  In  no  other  way,  in  such  a 
case,  can  he  see  that  the  law  violated  is  faithfully  executed.  If  his  sub- 
ordinate is  authorized  to  act,  except  in  subjection  to  his  authority,  it  will 
ever  be  in  the  power  of  the  subordinate  to  render  nugatory  the  constitu- 
tional obligation  of  the  President  to  "take  care  that  the  laws  be  faith- 
fully executed." 

In  the  beginning  of  the  Government  it  was  a  question  whether  the 
President's  power  of  appointment,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  of  executive  officers,  carried  with  it,  as  an  incident,  the  power  of 
removal,  without  the  like  advice  and  consent?  But  because,  among 
other  reasons,  the  constitution  made  it  imperative  on  the  President  to 
have  tHe  laws  executed,  and  of  course  made  him  responsible  if  it  was 
not  done,  and  because  he  could  only  have  them  executed  through  the 
designated  executive  officers,  it  was  held  as  early  as  1789,  by  Congress, 
that  he  necessarily  possessed  the  power  of  removal,  (Kent's  Com.,  308- 
309,)  and  this  construction  has  been  maintained  by  every  President,  and, 
in  more  than  one  instance,  recognized  by  the  Supreme  Court. 

Having,  then,  the  power  to  remove  an  executive  officer,  if  such  officer 
refuses,  or  from  any  cause  neglects,  to  execute  the  laws,  the  President 
is  to  remove  him  and  appoint  another,  since  in  no  other  way  he  can  dis- 
charge his  express  duty  "  to  take  care  that"  the  laws  be  faithfully  exe- 
cuted." It  is  impossible  for  him,  personally,  to  execute  the  laws.  Their 
execution,  therefore,  by  him,  or  rather  his  obligation  to  see  that  they  are 
executed,  is  to  be  through  subordinate  officers,  created  for  the  purpose 
by  Congress,  and  who,  when  created,  are  subject  to  his  superintendence 
and  control,  as  the  constitutional  depository  of  the  whole  executive 
power  of  the  Government.  If,  therefore,  a  subordinate  executive  officer 
fails  to  carry  out  a  law,  the  President  cannot  shelter  himself  behind  such 
officer  from  the  responsibility  imposed  upon  him,  in  terms,  by  the  con- 
stitution, of  seeing  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed.  If  a  President 
were  to  take  that  ground,  it  would  seem  obvious  that  he  could  not  main- 
tain it.  His  subordinates  are  subject  to  his  power  of  removal,  and  are, 
consequently,  subject  to  his  control.  Their  acts,  in  contemplation  of 
law,  are  his  acts — their  misconduct,  if  unredressed  by  him,  becomes  his 
misconduct.  This  principle  is  alike  true  of  .the  acts  and  misconduct  of 
the  subordinate  officers  of  the  several  departments,  as  of  the  heads  of 
the  departments.  Consequently,  if  a  subordinate  officer  does  not  per- 
form his  duty  under  the  law,  it  is  as  much  the  obligation  as  the  pro- 
vince of  the  President,  to  direct  him  to  perform  it,  and  to  remove  him 
if  he  continues  to  refuse,  as  it  is  his  duty  in  such  a  case,  to  direct  or 
remove  a  head  oi  a  department.  On  principle,  therefore,  irrespective 
of  other  authority,  it  is  submitted  as  clear,  that  in  all  cases  when  an 
executive  officer  will  not  or  does  not  carry  out  a  law,  and  the  fact  is 
made  known  to  the  President,  it  is  not  only  his  right  but  his  duty  to 
see  that  he  does  it. 

III.  But  on  authority,  the  point  is  thought  to  be  equally  free  of 
doubt.  At  one  period  it  was  the  opinion  in  the  Attorney  General's 
office  that  the  accounting  officers  of  the  treasury,  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duties,  were  not  under  the  control  of  the  Secretary.  That  view 


81 

was  taken  by  Mr.  "Wirt,  on  the  20th  October,  1823,  (1  Opinions  Attor- 
ney General,  p.  624).  The  opposite  view,  by  Mr.  Berrien,  on  the  4th 
December,  1829,  (2nd  Vol.,  p.  302).  Mr.  Wirt's  doctrine  was  held  by 
Mr.  Taney  on  the  5th  April,  183'2,  (Ib.  508,)  and  Mr.  Berrien's  by  Mr. 
Crittenden,  on  the  13th  November,  1852,  (5th  Vol.,  630,)  and  this  last 
has  ever  since  been  considered  by  the  office  as  the  true  doctrine.  Mr- 
Gushing  maintained  it,  with  his  usual  research  and  ability,  on  the  31st 
August,  1855,  (7th  Vol.,  pp.  453-464,)  and  by  a  report  to  the  President 
on  the  8th  March,  1854,  (Senate  Ex.  Doc.,  1st  Session,  33d  Congress, 
No.  55).  That  document  is  herewith  submitted,  and  the  President's 
attention  is  particularly  called  to  the  following  extract  from  pages  12 
and  13.  After  referring  to  the  several  opinions  of  his  predecessors, 
relating  to  the  question,  he  says :  "  On  a  question  raised  by  the  refusal 
of  the  Commissioner  of  Customs  to  take  the  direction  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  Mr.  Crittenden  elaborately  reviewed  the  whole  subject, 
and  determined,  by  unanswerable  argument,  the  right  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  in  the  given  case,  and,  by  analogy,  that  of  other  heads 
of  departments,  in  correspondent  cases,  (Opinion,  Nov.  13,  1852.") 

"Meanwhile,  if  an  opinipn  delivered  many  years  ago,  by  Mr.  Wirt, 
is  now  to  be  received  as  law,  then,  although  an  Auditor,  as  even  he  ad- 
mits, is  subject  to  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  or  the  Secretary 
of  the  Interior,  or  some  other  Secretary,  as  the  case  may  be,  yet  such 
Auditor  is  wholly  above  the  authority  of  the  President,  who,  neverthe- 
less, directs  the  Secretary.  Had  the  idea  presented  itself  as  a  mere 
question  of  the  order  of  business,  to  the  effect  that  the  President  should 
act  upon  the  subordinate  officers  through  the  heads  of  departments,  it 
might  have  answered  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  but  not  one  of  legal 
necessity.  But  the  idea  utterly  excludes  the  authority  of  the  President, 
and  so,  while  recognizing  the  authority  of  the  head  of  department,  in 
effect  makes  the  latter  also  superior  to  the  President,  which  is  in  con- 
flict with  universally  admitted  principles.  Such  an  assumed  anomaly 
of  relation,  therefore,  as  this  idea  supposes,  resting  upon  mere  opinion, 
or  exposition,  must,  of  course,  yield  to  better  reflection,  whenever  it 
comes  to  be  a  practical  question,  demanding  the  reconsideration  of  an 
Attorney  General." 

"  Upon  the  whole,  then,  heads  of  departments  have  a  three-fold  rela- 
tion, namely : 

"  1st.  To  the  President,  whose  political  or  confidential  ministers  they 
are,  to  execute  his  will,  or  rather  to  act  in  his  name  and  by  his  consti- 
tutional authority,  in  cases  in  which  the  President  possesses  a  constitu- 
tional or  legal  discretion." 

"  2nd.  To  the  law  ;  for  the  law  has  directed  them  to  perform  certain 
acts,  and  when  the  rights  of  individuals  are  dependent  on  those  acts, 
then,  in  such  cases,  a  head  of  department  is  an  officer  of  the  law,  and 
answerable  to  the  laws  for  his  conduct,  (Marbury  vs.  Madison,  1  Cranch, 
49-61,)  and," 

"  3d.  To  Congress,  in  the  conditions  contemplated  by  the  Constitu- 
tion—" 

IV.     Finally,  on  the  right  of  appeal. 

Mr.  Taney,  in  an  opinion  given  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  on  the  10th 

of  September,  1831,  (2d  Vol.,  p.  463,)  expressly  holds  that  in  the  case 
9 


82 

of  an  erroneous  decision  by  an  accounting  officer,  although  it  is  binding 
upon  his  own  subordinate,  the  party  wronged  may  carry  the  matter  by 
appeal  to  the  Secretary,  and,  if  his  decision  is  not  satisfactory,  that  he 
may  also  carry  it  by  appeal  to  the  President.  His  language  is,  the 
party  may  "  appeal  to  the  Secretary,"  and  if  his  decision  is  not  satisfac- 
tory, "  he  may  carry  his  appeal  from  the  Secretary,  dec.,  before  the  Presi- 
dent" This  opinion  remains,  it  is  believed,  the  established  doctrine  of 
the  office,  and  will  be  seen  to  be  maintained  by  Mr.  Gushing,  on  con- 
clusive grounds,  in  his  report  just  referred  to. 

Upon  the  whole,  then,  upon  the  meaning  of  the  constitution,  consid- 
ering the  question  as  now  for  the  first  time  presented,  it  is  submitted  as 
clear, 

First,  That  the  President  not  only  may,  but  is  bound  to,  interfere  in 
every  case  when  a  subaltern  executive  officer  does  not  fulfill  his  duty 
under  a  law ;  and, 

Second,  That  upon  the  now  recognized  rule  of  the  Attorney  Gene- 
ral's office,  the  President,  in  such  a  case,  may  be  called  upon  to  give  the 
necessary  redress  by  an  appeal  from  the  decision  of  a  head  of  a  depart- 
ment, where  such  decision  confirms  an  erroneous  one,  or  fails  fully  to 
correct  it  of  one  of  his  own  subordinates. 

REVERDY  JOHNSON, 

For  the  President. 

Washington,  Sept.  22,  1863. 

INDIAN    RESERVATIONS   IN   ILLINOIS,  AND   THE   PER   CENT.    THEREON. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  D.  0.,  Aug.  22,  1863. 
Hon.  JAMES  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  :  * 

SIR — Will  you  please  answer  the  following  questions: 
First,  Are  there  any  Indian  reservations  in  the  State  of  Illinois  upon 
which  five  per  cent,  has  not  been  paid  by  the  General  Government,  and 
if  so,  how  many  acres  do  they  embrace  in  the  aggregate  ?  . 

Second,  Will  you  state  an  account  of  said  five  per  cent,  on  said  reser- 
vations, upon  application  being  made  therefor  in  behalf  of  Illinois,  under 
and  by  virtue  ot  "An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United 
States  and  the  state  of  Mississippi,  and  other  states,  approved  March  3d, 
1857."  Very  respectfully, 

I.  N.  MORRIS, 

Agent  for  Illinois. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  Sept.  7,  1863. 

SIR — In  answer  to  the  inquiries  in  your  letter  of  the  22d  ult,  this 
morning  received,  I  have  the  honor  to  state : 

First,  That  there  are  "  Indian  reservations  in  the  State  of  Illinois, 
upon  which  five  per  cent,  has  not  been  paid,"  embracing  in  the  aggre- 
gate, by  estimate,  seventy-sevenjsections. 

Second,  That  we  are  prepared  to  state  an  account  for  the  quantity 
covered  by  such  reservations  when  application  therefor  is  made. 

The  quantity  first  above  mentioned  is  the  result  of  a  hurried  cursory 
examination,  80  as  to  meet  your  call  at  once,  and  will  be,  of  course,  lia- 


83 

'  ble  to  such  modification  as  a  more  thorough  scrutiny  of  the  records  may 
indicate. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Agent  for  Illinois^  Present. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  Sept.  8,  1863. 
Hon.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Com? r  Gen.  Land  Office. 

SIR — In  your  letter  to  me,  of  yesterday's  date,  you  express  your  entire 
readiness  to  state  an  account  of  the  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reserva- 
tions in  Illinois,  upon  application  being  made  to  that  effect.  As  the 
Agent  pf  that  State,  1  now  respectfully  make  that  application,  not 
waiving,  of  course,  my  previous  application  for  the  two  per  cent,  on  the 
public  lands.  Yery  respectfully, 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  Sept.  14, 1863. 

SIR — Herewith  I  inclose  a  copy  of  my  letter  of  the  12th  instant,  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  inclosing  schedule  for  revision,  as  a  basis 
of  the  adjustment  of  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Illinois  to  per  centage  on 
Indian  reserves  within  the  limits  of  the  State. 

As  the  decision  in  chief  was  made  by  the  appellate  authority,  I  have 
deemed  it  proper  that  the  same  authority  should  enunciate  the  principle 
which  shall  control  in  the  adjustment,  and  hence  have  found  it  necessary 
to  ask  the  ruling  of  the  department  proper  in  the  matter. 

With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Present. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  Sept.  15*A,  1863. 
-  HON.  J.  P.  USHER,  Secretary  of  the  Interior  : 

SIR — ]£  have  this  moment  received  from  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office  a  communication,  in  which  he  informs  me  that,  on 
the  12th  inst.,  he  referred  to  you  for  decision  a  point  involved  in  my 
application,  in  behalf  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  for  the  payment  of  five  per 
cent,  on  the  Indian  reservations  within  her  limits.  Without  expressing 
an  opinion  on  the  propriety  or  impropriety,  the  legality  or  illegality  of 
that  reference,  I  have  to  ask  how  soon  you  will  act  on  the  matter  ?  I 
cannot  but  hope  it  will  be  at  once.  Please  inform  me  on  the  subject. 
It  will  take  but  a  moment  to  dispose  of  the  question,  and  as  I  am  anxious 
to  leave  for  home,  I  would  be  greatly  gratified  and  duly  thankful  for 
prompt  action. 

Please  let  me  hear  from  you  to-day,  in  reply. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

I.  K.  MORRIS. 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

Washington,  D.  C..  Sept.  15th,  1863. 

SIR — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  this  date,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform 
\  you  that  I  had,  before  its  receipt,  referred  to  the  Commissioner 


84 

an  affairs,  the  communication  from  the  Commissioner  of  the  General 
Land  Office,  to  which  you  allude,  with  the  papers  accompanying  the 
same. 

That  officer  requested  in  his  communication  that  the  schedule  of  Indi- 
an reservations  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  therewith  transmitted,  should 
"be  critically  tested  by  the  records  of  the  Indian  office,  so  that,  if  any 
of  the  reserves  have  been  retroceded  to  the  United  States,  the  same  may 
be  excluded;  or  if  any  omission  exists,  it  may  be  supplied,  in  order  that 
this  schedule  may  thus  be  perfected  from,  and  verified  by  the  records 
of  the  office  of  Indian  affairs,  and  thereafter  returned  to  this  office  as  the 
basis  of  an -account." 

As  soon  as  a  report  shall  have  been  received  from  the  Indian  office, 
it  will  be  forwarded  to  the  land  office,  to  enable  the  commissioner  to 
proceed  to  the  adjustment  of  the  account  in  question  ;  and  should  the 
department  deem  it  advisable  to  comply  with  his  request  lor  instructions 
in  regard  to  the  principle  applicable  to  such  adjustment,  they  will  then 
be  communicated  to  him. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  ^our  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  T.  OTTO, 

Assistant  Secretary. 
Hon.  ISAAC  N.  MORKIS,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Several  other  communications  passed  between  myself  and  the  Interior 
Secretary,  Commissioner  of  the  Indian  Bureau,  General  Land  Office, 
&c.,  in  reference  to  the  time  of  acting  on  the  claim  of  the  State  for  the 
per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations,  and  the  termination  of  that  action, 
which  I  shall  not  embrace  in  this  report,  as  they  are  not  material.  Un- 
der the  opinion  of  the  Acting  Secretary,  which  follows,  and  was  reviewed 
by  me,  I  received  for  the  State,  $1,565  80-100,  which  amount  I  reported 
to  your  Excellency  and  to  the  State  Treasurer: 

DEPARTMENT  or  THE  INTERIOR, 

Washington,  /Sept.  25,  1863. 

SIR— This  Department  has  received  your  letter  of  the  12th  instant, 
inclosing  two  papers : 

First— The  application  of  the  8th  instant,  of  the  Hon.  1.  N.  Morris, 
for  an  adjustment  of  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  under  the  act  of 
Congress,  approved  3d  of  March,  1857.  (Stat.,  vol.  11,  page  200,)  for 
per  centage  on  the  Indian  reservations  lying  in  that  State. 

Second-  A  schedule  of  the  Indian  reserves,  collected  from  the  town- 
ship plats  of  Illinois  surveys,  and  from  the  Indian  reservation  records 
of  your  office. 

You  request  "that  said  schedule  may  be  critically  tested  by  the  records 
of  the  Indian  office,  so  that  if  any  of  the  reserves  have  been  retroceded 
to  the  United  States,  the  same  may  be  excluded,  or  if  any  omission  ex- 
ists it  may  bo  supplied,  in  order  that  this  schedule  may  thus  be  perfect- 
ed from,  and  verified  by  the  records  of  the  office  of  Indian  affairs,  and 
thereafter  returned  to  your  office  as  the  basis  of  an  account." 

You  suggest  that  a  question  arises  whether  the  stipulation  as  to  the 
two  per  cent,  in  the  third  proposition  of  the  enabling  act  of  April  18th, 


85 

1818,  extends  also  to  the  Indian  reserves,  and  upon  that  point,  you  re- 
quest instructions  to  govern  your  office  in  the  adjustment  of  the  present 
claim. 

I  am  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  to  inform  you  that  on 
the  receipt  of  your  letter  and  the  accompanying  papers,  they  were  re- 
ferred to  the  Commissioner  of  Indian  Affairs  for  an  examination  and 
early  report.  They  were  returned  on  this  day,  and  I  now  transmit  to 
you  the  papers  and  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  that  officer  to  this  department, 
under  date  of  the  24th  inst. 

The  act  of  1857,  and  one  approved  March  2d,  1855,  entitled,  "An  act 
to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of 
Alabama,"  were  recently  under  consideration,  and  the  opinion  of  the 
department  touching  their  bearing  and  effect  upon  the  then  pending 
claim  of  Illinois,  was  communicated  to  you  on  the  31st  ultimo. 

The  department,  upon  a  renewed  examination  of  the  subject,  ren- 
dered necessary  by  your  letter,  adheres  to  that  opinion  as  furnishing  a 
sound  exposition  of  the  acts  of  Congress  relating  to  the  questions  which 
both  claims  involve. 

It  was  then  held : 

First — That  two-fifths  of  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands 
lying  within  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  sold  since  January  1st,  1819,  had 
been  disbursed  by  Congress  in  strict  accordance  with  the  compact  be- 
tween the  general  government  and  that  State. 

Second — That  Congress  had  never  relinquished  its  control  over  said 
two  fifths,  or  authorized  the  payment  of  the  same,  or  any  part  thereof, 
to  the  State  of  Illinois. 

Third — That  Congress,  by  act  approved  September  4,  18-11,  hadrelin- 
*quished  to  the  States  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  the  two-fifths  of  the 
five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands  lying  within  their  respec- 
tive limits  which  had  been  or  should  be  hereafter  sold.  The  effect  of 
this  legislation,  and  the  provisions  of  the  enabling  acts  of  those  States,  in 
regard  to  the  remaining  three-fifths,  was  to  secure  to  them  five  per  cent,  of 
the  net  amount  of  the  sales  of  such  lands. 

Fourth — The  act  of  1855  and  1857  did  not  give  to  Alabama  and  Mis- 
sissippi an  additional  per  centum  upon  the  proceeds  of  such  sales;  but 
requires  the  commissioner  in  the  account  between  the  United  States  and 
those  States  to  include  the  reservations  under  treaties  with  certain  Indi- 
an tribes,  and  estimating  the  same  at  the  minimum  value,  to  pay  to  the 
said  States  five  per  centum  thereon,  as  in  case  of  other  sales. 

Fifth— By  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1857,  the  commissioner  was 
required  to  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the 
States  upon  the  same  principle,  that  is  to  say.  upon  the  principle  that 
for  the  purpose  of  an  account,  lands  embraced  by  permanent  Indian 
reservations  should  be  estimated  as  so  much  lands  sold  at  one  dollar 
and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre,  and  to  allow  raid  pay  to  each  State  such 
amount  as" should  thus  be  found  due. 

At  the  time  of  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1841,  the  general  government 
had  adopted  no  measures  to  execute  the  trust  she  had  assumed  in  regard 
to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi.  It  remained  in 
the  treasury,  and  by  that  act  was  relinquished  to  them  upon  condition 
that  the  legislature  of  each  State  should  first  pass  an  act  declaring  their 


86 

acceptance  of  said  reliriquishment  in  full  of  said  fund,  and  embracing  a 
provision  to  be  unalterable  without  the  consent  of  Congress;  that  the 
whole  of  said  fund  should  be  faithfully  applied  to  the  construction  of 
certain  specified  work  of  internal  improvement.  Mississippi,  by  an  act 
approved  Feb.  6, 1842,  (acts  of  Mississippi  for  1842,  page  119,)  and  Ala- 
bama, by  an  act  approved  Dec.  29,  1811,  (acts  of  Alabama  for  1841, 
page  39,)  accepted  the  relinquishment  on  the  terms  and  conditions  re- 
quired by  Congress.  The  effect  of  this  legislation  was  to  relieve  Con- 
gress from  the  trust,  and  to  impose  upon  those  States,  respectively,  the 
application  of  the  fund. 

There  is  obviously  no  substantial  difference  in  principle  between  the 
direct  payment  to  a  State  of  the  funds,  and  the  expenditure  of  it  for  the 
purpose  stipulated  in  the  compact  between  the  general  government  and 
such  State.  In  either  case,  the  lawful  appropriation  of  the  fund  is  a  full 
discharge  of  the  obligation  of  the  general  government,  and  a  satisfaction 
of  the  claim  of  the  State  for  the  payment  of  the  money,  or  the  due  exe- 
cution of  the  trust. 

The  State  of  Illinois  never  released  the  general  government  from  its 
obligation  to  appropriate  the  fund  pursuant  to  the  compact  which  was 
binding  upon  them  both. 

That  obligation  was  fully  discharged,  and  the  former  opinion  cites  the 
acts  of  Congress  specifically  providing  for  the  expenditure  of  $606,000 
within  her  limits  in  the  construction  of  the  National  Road,  and  making 
it  a  charge  upon  her  two  per  cent.  fund.  The  actual  amount  so  expend- 
ed, appears,  by  an  official  statement  from  the  books  of  the  treasury,  to 
be  ($739,879  99)  seven  hundred  and  thirty-nine  thousand,  eight  hun- 
dred and  seventy-nine  dollars  and  ninety-nine  cents. 

Regarding  then  the  Indian  reservations  as  so  much  land  sold,  it  is 
very  evident  that  the  accruing  two  per  cent,  therefrom,  added  to  that 
arising  from  actual  sales,  is  not  sufficient  to  reimburse  the  general  gov- 
ernment. 

It  is  true  that  the  compact  has  exclusive  reference  to  moneys  derived 
from  sales.  Reservations  are  put  upon  the  same  footing  as  sales  by  the 
acts  relied  upon  in  the  support  of  the  claim,  and  the  department  is  not 
aware  of  any  legislation  requiring  or  directing  any  payment  to  Illinois 
on  account  of  that  fund. 

.That  State  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  entitled 
to  three  per  cent,  upon  the  payment  of  Indian  reservations  within  her 
limits. 

The  Secretary  deems  it  proper  to  say,  that  the  remarks  in  this  and  the 
preceding  opinion,  in  regard  to  the  settlement  of  accounts  upon  the  terms 
prescribed  by  the  act  of  1857,  are  not  meant  to  apply  to  States  thereaf- 
ter admitted  into  the  Union.  It  is  unnecessary  to  express  any  opinion 
as  to  the  right  of  such  States  to  the  benefits  of  that  act,  as  the  question 
is  not  before  him. 

You  will  be  pleased  to  furnish  Mr.  Morris,  and  His  Excellency,  the 
Governor  of  Illinois,  with  a  copy  of  this  opinion. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respecfully,  your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed,)  W.  T.  OTTO, 

Assistant  Secretary. 
HON.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS, 

Commissioner  of  General  Public  Land  Office  : 


87 

SUPPLEMENTAL  ARGUMENT  OF  MK.  MORRIS,  REVIEWING  THE  OPINION  OF  THE 
ACTING  SECRETARY  OF  THE  INTERIOR  ON  THE  QUESTION  OF  THE  RIGHT  OF 
ILLINOIS  TO  FIVE  PER  CENT.  ON  HER  INDIAN  RESERVATIONS. 

MR.  PRESIDENT: — I  mentioned  to  yon,  when  I  presented  a»  argument 
on  "Wednesday  last,  in  support  of  the  claim  of  Illinois  to  two  per  cent, 
on  the  public  lands  sold  in  that  State,  that  I  was  unable,  at  that  mo- 
ment, to  complete  my  remarks  relating  to  live  per  cent,  on  Indian  reser- 
vations, for  the  reason  that  the  question  involving  that  fund  had  gone 
before  the  (Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  was  awaiting  his  action. 

It, was  not  until  Saturday  evening,  the  26th  of  September  inst,  that 
a  copy  of  his  opinion  was  furnished  me.  I  propose  now  to  briefly  review 
it  separately,  thinking  that  preferable  to  interweaving  what  I  have  to 
say  arjoutitin  my  former  argument. 

The  simple  question  submitted  to  (he  honorable  Secretary  was,  wheth- 
er the  State  was  entitled  to  three  or  five  per  cent,  on  her  Indian  reser- 
vations. It  would  seem  that  that  question  could  have  been  disposed  of 
in  very  few  words,  but  the  honorable  Secretary  appears  to  have  availed 
himself  of  it  to  re-argue  the  whole  question  of  Illinois'  rights,  which  I 
have  insisted  upon,  and  to  fortify  his  former  views  with  such  additional 
observations  as  suggested  themselves  to  his  mind.  Especially  has  he 
given  a  summary  of  what  he  alleges  those  views,  and  his  conclusions 
were. 

My  application  for  the.  payment  of  the  five  per  cent,  to  Illinois  on  her 
Indian  reservations  did  not  go  to  the  Interior  Department  on  my  motion 
or  upon  an  appeal.  After  it  reached  there,  it  was  determined  in  that 
department  that  the  State  was  only  entitled  to  three  per  cent,  on  those 
reservations,  the  balance  being  retained  to  cover  alleged  expenditures 
on  the  National  Road. 

I  will  not  now  enter  into  an  argument  showing  that  the  Interior 
Department  had  no  jurisdiction  of  the  question,  further  than  to  say  that 
the  law  of  1857  is  directory  to  the  Land  Commissioner  specifically,  and 
not  to  the  Interior  Secretary,  who  has  arrested  the  determination  of  the 
former  officer,  who  agreed  to  state  five  per  cent,  as  the  amount  Illinois 
is  entitled  to  on  leer  Indian  reservations.  Thus  they  come  in  direct  con- 
flict with  each  other;  for  it  will  be  seen  by  the  correspondence  between 
myself  and  the  honorable  Land  Commissioner  embraced  in  my  former 
argument,  that  he  did  not  raise  the  point  that  the  State  is  to  be  charged 
with  anything  on  account  of  expenditures  on  the  National  Road,  nor 
has  he  ever  raised  it.  but  the  honorable  Secretary  has.  In  this  conflict 
of  opinion  involving  the  whole  subject  which  I  have  presented,  I  think 
your  Excellency  is  bound  to  interfere,  and  necessarily  settle  the  whole 
question.  The  same  principle  applies  to  both,  and  the  settlement  of  one 
case  must  be  the  settlement  of  the  other. 

One  point  has  been  distinctly  gained  by  the  honorable  Secretary's 
last  opinion.  He  has  committed  himself  to  the  decision,  that  Illinois  is 
entitled  to  three  per  cent  on  her  Indian  reservations,  when,  according 
to  his  assumptions,  there  is  no  "land  account"  to  "include"  it  in  as  the 
law  requires.  He  still  persists  in  the  idea  that  the  act  of  1857  only  ap- 
plies to  Indian  reservations,  and  does  not  embrace  anything  else.  As  I 
have  pretty  fully  discussed  that  point  heretofore,  it  is  not  requisite  I 
should  enter  largely  upon  it  again. 


88 

If  I  could  be  surprised  at  any  amount  of  opposition  from  the  Interior 
Department  to  the  claim  of  Illinois,  I  would  be  astonished  at  the  late 
opinion  of  the  honorable  Secretary.  It  was  evidently  gotten  up  with 
express  reference  to  throwing  additional  embarrassment  in  the  way,  and 
influencing  your  action,  Mr.  President.  You  cannot  fail,  however,  to 
see  at  a  glance  that  it  is  more  specious  than  sound,  and  that  the  honor- 
able Secretary  still  obstinately  and  resolutely  persists  in  refusing  to  dis- 
cuss the  law,  except  the  Indian  reservation  feature  of  it.  I  submit  it  is 
not  a  fair  and  legitimate  use  to  make  of  the  legislation,  to  entirely  sup- 
press and  keep  out  of  mew  in  his  opinion,  as  he  has  done,  that  the  Jive 
per  cent,  accounts  of  Alabama,  Mississippi,  and  other  States,  were  to  be 
first  stated  under  the  provisions  in  their  enabling  acts,  and  then  the  five 
percent,  on  Indian  reservations  include^. 

The  Alabama  act  of  1855,  upon  which  the  act  of  1857  for  the  benefit 
of  Mississippi  and  other  States  is  founded,  requires  the  Account  of  that 
State  to  be  stated  under  the  sixth  section  of  her  enabling  act,  "for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of 'money  are  due  to  said 
State,  heretofore  unsettled,  under  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  of  March 
second,  1819,  for  the  admission  of  Alabama  into  the  Union."  The  sim- 
ple statement  of  the  account  was  not  to  be  treated  as  a  useless  piece  of 
labor,  but  required  the  payment  of  any  balance  of  the  five  per  cent,  found 
due  that  State.  When,  however,  it  was  stated,  and  the  five  per  cent, 
account  on  Indian  reservations  was  also  stated,  it  was  to  be  included  in 
the  first  account  and  the  two  accounts  became  one ;  then  the  law  re- 
quired the  payment  of  the  whole  amount  remaining  unpaid  thereon. 
Because  Alabama  was  to  receive  the  five  per  cent,  on  her  Indian  reser- 
vations "as  in  case  of  other  sales,"  which  words  the  honorable  Secretary 
uses  and  underscores,  it  does  not  follow  that  she  was  nut  to  receive  "the 
sum  or  sums  of  money  heretofore  unsettled,"  arising  from  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands  within  her  limits  under  the  provision  of  her  enabling 
act.  The  title  of  the  Alabama  act  is,  "An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts" 
(not  to  sette  an  account)  "between  the  United  States  and  the  State  df 
Alabama,"  the  title  of  the  Mississippi  act  following  this  language,  and 
hence,  it  is  clear  that  the  Congressional  legislation  was  designed  to  cov- 
er, as  it  does,  the  five  per  cent,  on  the  public  lands,  and  on  the  Indian 
reservations.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the  first  section  of  the  act  of 
1857,  which  was  to  settle  the  accounts  of  Mississippi  on  "the  same  prin- 
ciples of  allowance  and  settlement,"  that  is,  the  "principles"  of  stating 
both  accounts,  and  then  including  the  latter  in  the  first,  and  allowing 
and  paying  to  the  said  State  five  per  cent,  thereon.  The  act  of  1857 
was  not  to  state  the  account  of  Mississippi  on  the  same  "principle"  upon 
which  the  accounts  of  Alabama  were  required  to  be  settled,  referring 
only  to  one  class  of  lands,  but  to  state  her  accounts  on  the  "same  princi- 
ples"— using  the  plural  term — thus  showing  that  the  word  "principles" 
means,  as  used  in  the  law,  the  principle  of  stating  the  five  per  cent,  on 
public  lands,  and  also  the  principle  of  including  it  in  the  five  per  cent, 
on  Indian  reservations.  But  the  honorable  Secretary  erroneously  con- 
strues the  word  "principles"  to  mean  the  "principle"  of  including  the 
Indian  reservation  five  per  cent,  account  in  the  land  account  of  Ala- 
bama. How  can  he  make  the  word  "principles"  apply  with  any  sense 
or  reason  in  that  connection  ?  He  dashes  off  at  conclusions  with  remark- 


89 

able  facility,  without  regard  to  his  premises,  or  without  reference  to  the 
terms  or  TV  ords  of  the  law. 

If  Alabama  ar.d  Mississippi  were  to  receive  five  per  cent,  on  their 
Indian  reservations,  "as  in  case  of  other  sales,"  of  course  it  was  pro- 
vided that  they  were  to  receive  it  on  "other  sales,"  and  on  Indian  reser- 
vations the  "same  ;"  and  if,  by  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1857, 
other  States,  as  it  is  provided  therein,  were  to  receive  it  on  Indian  reser- 
vations, they  were  equally  entitled  to  receive  it  on  their  "other  sales" 
the  "same."  If  they  were  to  be  settled  with  on  the  "same  principles," 
they  were  to  receive  the  five  per  cent,  on  both  classes  of  land  "the 
same.0'  But  Congress  put  the  conclusion  beyond  all  doubt  that  the  five 
per  cent,  was  to  be  paid  on  both  public  lands  and  Indian  reservation  to 
other  Slates,  by  the  emphatic  additional  words,  "shall  allow  and  pay  to 
each  State  such  amount  as  shall  thus  be  found  duef  and  adding,  "esti- 
mating ALL  LANDS  and  permanent  reservations  at  $1  25  per  acre. 

In  the  first  section  of  the  act  it  is  provided  that  the  Indian  reserva- 
tions are  to  be  estimated  at  $1  25  per  acre,  and  in  the  second  section 
Congress  fixes  the  same  value  on  "ALL  LANDS,"  as  well  as  permanent 
reservations  as  the  basis  for  the  computation  on  both  classes. 

What  other  result  can  be  deduced  than  that  they  meant  it  should  be 
allowed  and  paid  on  both  ? 

Again,  Mississippi  was  to  have  her  accounts  stated  on  her  public 
lands,  and  if  any  sum  or  sums  of  money  were  found  due  thereon  and 
unsettled,  that  is  unpaid,  they  were  to  be  allowed  and  paid. 

This  is  all  Illinois  asks.  She  wants  her  accounts  stated,  allowed  and 
paid,  as  were  those  of  Alabama  and  Mississippi.  They  received  five 
per  cent,  on  their  public  lands  and  Indian  reservations,  and  she  asks  the 
United  States  to  settle  with  her  on  the  "same  principles."  What  prin- 
ciples? The  "principles,"  as  the  Hon.  Secretary  has  the  idea,  but  rather 
an  ungrammatical  way  of  expressing  it,  of  merging  the  five  per  cent, 
accounts  on  Indian  reservations  in  some  other  existing  law  requiring 
the  payment  of  the  five  per  cent,  on  public  lands.  Oh,  no !  What 
principles  then  ?  The  law  says  the  "principles"  of  "stating,  allowing  and 
paying  the  accounts."  The  "other  States"  were  also  to  have  their  ac- 
counts" stated  and  have  a  right  to  their  statement  under  the  law  if  they 
have  not  been  stated.  The  statement  of  a  governmental  account  implies 
its  payment,  but  the  law  removes  all  doubt  on  this  point  in  the  present 
case,  by  declaring  "it  shall  be  allowed  and  paid."  The  law  also  requires 
the  whole  accounts  of  each  of  the  States  embraced  in  it  to  be  stated  on 
their  public  lands,  and  while  Alabama  and  Mississippi  were  to  receive 
the  amounts  unsettled,  the  other  States  are  entitled,  by  the  second  sec- 
tion of  the  act,  to  have  theirs  "allowed  and  paid." 

But  again,  if,  as  the  Hon.  Secretary  insists,  Alabama  and  Mississippi 
had  their  two  per  cent,  provided  for  by  the  act  of  1841,  their  five  per 
cent,  on  Indian  reservations  was  not  embraced  in  that  act.  He  concedes 
they  received  that  under  the  acts  of  1855  and  1857.  If  the  "other 
States"  are  to  be  settled  with  on  the  "same  principles,"  how  can  he  allow 
and  pay  to  Alabama  and  Mississippi  the  Jive  per  cent,  on  their  Indian 
reservations,  and  withhold  the  same  alloicance  and  payment  to  Illinois  f 
How  can  he  pay  to  Mississippi  Jive  per  cent,  on  her  Indian  reservations, 
and  only  allow  and  pay  to  Illinois  three  per  cent,  under  the  same  act,  on 
*— 10 


90 

her  Indian  reservations,  as  he  has  decided  shall  be  done — thus  discrim- 
inating against  my  own  State,  when  the  law  places  her  on  a  full  and 
equal  footing  with  Alabama  and  Mississippi  'i  It  is  very  obvious  he 
cannot  legally  do  it.  It  is  very  obvious  he  has  sought  to  avoid  the  law 
to  the  injuiy  of  Illinois,  and  not  to  expound  and  enforce  it,  and  in 
doing  so,  his  anxiety  to  escape  from  the  obligations  it  imposes  on  him, 
has  led  him  so  far,  that  he  has  by  his  last  decision,  overthrown  by  his 
act  all  his  arguments,  and  stands  condemned  before  the  bar  of  his  own 
reasons.  This  is  ever  the  result  with  those  who  deviate  from  the  plain 
line  of  duty  and  follow  a  shadow  and  not  a  substance.  Let  me  again 
repeat  the  proposition  upon  which  my  first  argument  was  based  and 
which  comprehends  all  the  questions  involved  in  the  issue  which  I  make 
with  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  It  is  this.  The  act  of  1857,  in  its 
terms  and  designs,  not  only  required  that  the  Indian  reservations  should 
be  given  a  status  similar  in  character  to  other  public  lands,  but  also  that 
an  account  should  be  stated,  allowed  and  paid,  embracing  all  the  public 
lands  within  the  limits  of  the  State,  and  this  was  a  requirement,  positive 
and  peremptory  and  additional  to  the  new  definition  given  by  the  statute 
of  the  character  of  the  Indian  reservations,  and  to  the  direction  given 
of  the  mode  of  stating  them. 

The  "principles"  upon  which  the  accounts  were  to  be  stated  were  not 
only  the  inclusion  of  the  Indian  reservations,  but  also  the  stating,  allow- 
ing and  paying  accounts  created  by  pre-existing  provisions  in  the  enabling 
acts  of  the  several  States  /  yet  the  Hon.  Secretary  still  persists  in  main- 
taining his  right  to  travel  within  the  circle  of  Indian  reservations,  and 
refuses  to  overstep  their  boundary. 

Hear  him.    He  says : 

"By  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1857,  the  Commissioner  was  re- 
quired to  state  an  account"  (mark,  he  does  not  say  upon  what,}  "between 
the  United  States  and  each  of  the  other  States  upon  the  same  principle, 
that  is  to  say,  upon  the  principle  that  for  the  purpose  of  an  account, 
lands  embraced  by  permanent  Indian  reservations  should  be  estimated 
as  so  much  lands  sold,  at  one  dollar  and  twenty-five  cents  per  acre,  and 
to  allow  and  pay  to  such  State  such  amount  as  should  thus  be  found 
due." 

Not  a  word  is  to  be  found  in  the  language  of  Hon.  Secretary,  that  the 
estimation  was  to  be  made  on  '•'•all  lands  and  permanent  reservations" — 
not  a  word  that  the  accounts  of  the  other  States  were  to  be  stated  under 
the  provisions  of  their  enabling  acts,  or  the  acts  admitting  them  into  the 
Union.  All  this  is  carefully,  and  evidently  designedly,  kept  out  of 
view.  But  more.  The  Hon.  Secretary  has  misquoted  the  language  of 
the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1857.  He  says  that  by  that  section  the 
Commissioner  was  required  to  state  an  account  between  the  United 
States  and  each  of  the  other  States  upon  the  same  "principle,"  whereas, 
the  word  used  in  the  law  is  "principles" — a  very  different  word  and 
having  a  very  different  signification,  as  applied  in  the  section  to  the  sub- 
stantive matter  of  legislation. 

To  state  "an  account"  upon  the  "principle  of  including  the  per  cent, 
on  Indian  reservations  in  an  account  of  the  five  per  cent,  on  public  lands, 
is  quite  a  different  thing  to  stating  "certain  accounts"  of  the  other  States 
upon  the  "same  principle*"  applied  to  Alabama  and  Mississippi  in  allow- 


91 

ing  and  paving  to  them  five  per  cent,  on  their  public  lands  and  Indian 
reservations. 

The  Hon.  Secretary  is  somehow  so  unfortunate  in  writing  his  opinions 
as  to  drop  the  little  letter  "s." 

The  re-statement  of  the  first  opinion  of  the  Hon.  Secretarv  in  his 
second  one,  upon  the  simple  question  before  him,  was  wholly  unneces- 
sary for  the  guidance  of  the  Land  Commissioner  in  the  premises,  and 
was  evidently  intended  for  your  eye,  Mr.  President. 

The  Hon.  Secretary  affirms  that  the  firet  position  he  held  was  : 

"That  two-fifths  of  the  five  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  lands 
lying  within  the  State  of  Illinois,  has  been  disbursed  by  Congress  in 
strict  accordance  with  the  compact  between  the  General  Government 
and  that  State." 

This  I  utterly  deny,  and  challenge  the  Secretary  to  the  proof.  It  will 
not  be  sufficient  for  him  to  say  that  the  amount  expended  in  his  own 
State  (Indiana)  on  the  National  road,  which  is  now  the  private  property 
of  that  State,  or  that  the  amount  wasted  upon  the  National  road  in  Illi- 
nois is  a  legal  compliance  with  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  admitting 
her  into  the  union.  I  have  heretofore  discussed  this  point,  and  will  not 
elaborate  it,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  Hon.  Secretary  has 
not  discussed  it,  and  contented  himself  with  simple  naked  declarations 
concerning  it.  The  question,  however,  of  expenditures  on  the  National 
road,  as  I  have  heretofore  shown,  and  desire  again  to  impress,  has  noth- 
ing to  do  with  the  one  I  have  presented. 

Further  on  in  his  second  opinion,  the  Hon.  Secretary  says  : 

"The  State  of  Illinois  never  released  the  General  Government  from 
its  obligation  to  appropriate  the  fund  pursuant  to  the  compact  which  was 
binding  upon  them  both." 

Two  inferences  are  deducible  from"this  language. 

First,  that  the  State  of  Illinois  has  yet  a  subsisting  demand  against 
-  the  General  Government  for  this  fund,  which  she  has  never  relin- 
quished, as  the  Hon.  Secretary  admits,  and  I  thank  him  for  his  full,  free 
and  frank  acknowledgment  of  the  fact.  It  puts  it  and  the  rights  of  the 
State  beyond  all  cavil  or  doubt,  and  dispenses  with  any  argument  to  sus- 
tain the  point.  It  does  more.  It  overthrows  the  Hon.  Secretary's  own 
reasoning  and  deductions  that  the  State  is  not  entitled  to  the  money  I 
claim  for  her.  She  has  never  relinquished  her  right  to  it,  has  never  ob- 
tained it,  and  it  cannot  be  shown  that  it  has  ever  been  expended  in  com- 
pliance with  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  admitting  her  into  the  Union. 
I  again  thank  the  Hon.  Secretary  for  his  admission.  lie  admits  that 
the  compact  was  binding  both  on  the  General  Government  and  the 
State,  and  that  the  State  has  never  released  the  General  Government 
from  the  obligation  imposed  upon  her  by  that  compact.  Thus  the  Hon. 
Secretary  has  virtually  acknowledged  the  validity  of  the  claim  I  repre- 
sent, and  that  Illinois  has  always  regarded  it  as  valid. 

Hence,  second,  that  the  General  Government  is  still  holden  to  Illi- 
nois for  the  expenditure  of  the  fund  in  compliance  with  the  sixth  section 
of  the  enabling  act  of  that  State. 

But  if  we  had  run  the  statement  back,  and  connect  it  with  another, 
with  which  it  has  no  connection,  to-wit :  with  one  that  the  act  of  1841 
relinquished  the  two  per  cent  to  Alabama  and  Mississippi  on  conditions 


92 

"declaring  their  acceptance  of  said  relinquishment  in  full  of  said  fund, 
and  embracing  a  provision  to  be  unalterable,  without  the  consent  of 
Congress,  that  the  whole  of  said  fund  should  be  applied  in  the  construc- 
tion of  works  of  internal  improvement,"  still  that  does  not  help  the 
Hon.  Secretary  out  of  his  trouble.  There  are  no  restrictions  in  the  acts 
of  1855  and  1857,  such  as  are  found  in  the  act  of  1841,  imposed  upon 
the  States,  and  it  may  be,  for  aught  you  or  1  know,  Mr.  President,  that 
one  object  Alabama  and  Mississippi  had  in  procuring  the  additional 
legislation  of  1855  and  1857,  was  to  get  rid  of  the  restrictions  imposed 
upon  them  by  the  act  of  1841,  in  regard  to  the  expenditure  of  their  re- 
spective amounts.  However  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  the  restrictions 
were  removed,  and  all  the  States  left  free  to  appropriate  their  several 
sums  as  they  might  determine  best. 

I  am  wearied,  Mr.  President,  with  answering  such  arguments  as  I 
have  just  referred  to,  and  with  which  the  Hon.  Secretary's  opinions 
abound,  for  there  is  nothing  in  them,  and  besides  they  are  inconsistent 
with  themselves. 

Immediately  following  the  last  words  I  have  quoted  from  the  Hon. 
Secretary's  opinion,  is  the  following :  "  that  obligation  was  fully  dis- 
charged" (I  have  emphatically  denied,  and  I  think  clearly  shown  that 
this  is  an  erroneous  conclusion)  "and  the  former  opinion  cites  the  acts 
of  Congress  specifically  providing  for  the  expenditure  of  $606,000 
within  her  limits  in  the  construction  of  the  National  road.  The  actual 
amount  so  expended  appears  from  the  books  of  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment to  be  ($739,879  99)  seven  hundred  and  thirty-nine  thousand  eight 
hundred  and  seventy-nine  dollars  and  ninety-nine  cents. 

It  thus  appears  from  the  Hon.  Secretary's  statement  that  $33,879  91) 
were  expended  more  than  there  was  any  appropriation  to  cover!  Will 
he  insist  that  that  amount  is  properly  chargeable  to  the  two  per  cent, 
fund  of  Illinois  also  ? 

The  most  important  part  of  the  Hon.  Secretary's  statement  is,  how- 
ever, that  the  books  in  the  Treasury  Department  show  the  expenditure 
of  $739,879  99,  from  which  the  inference  will  be  drawn,  in  the  absence 
of  the  facts,  that  that  amount  is  charged  against  Illinois'  two  per  cent, 
fund  on  those  books.  Such  is  not  the  case,  and  I  cannot  make  the  truth 
about  it  more  patent  than  to  give  the  following  certificate  of  the  Acting 
Register  of  the  Treasury : 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  REGISTER'S  OFFICE,  Sept.  26,  1863. 
I  do  hereby  certify  that  there  is  no  account  on  the  books  of  this  office 
in  relation  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  with  the  State  of  Illinois.     No  sum 
has  been  credited  to  said  State  on  account  of  said  fund,  nor  has  there 
ever  been  any  amount  charged  against  it  in  this  office. 

R.  SOLGER, 

Acting  Register. 

When  the  account  has  not  been  stated — when  nothing  has  been 
charged  against  it  in  the  Treasury  Department — when  it  is  remembered 
that  the  Interior  Secretary  cannot  act  officially  upon  any  business  per- 
taining to  the  Treasury,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with,  or  control  over  it, 
it  is  indeed  most  extraordinary  that  he  should  base  his  official  action 
upon  what  does  pertain  to  the  Treasury  Department,  more  especially 


93 

when  the  books  of  that  department  do  not  show  that  one  dollar  has  ever 
been  charged  by  the  United  States  against  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of 
Illinois. 

Let  me  recapitulate.  The  Hon.  Secretary  gives  in  his  last  opinion 
his  interpretation  of  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  1857.  He  says : 

"By -the  second  section  of  the  act  the  Land  Commissioner  is  required 
to  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  each  of  the  other 
States  upon  the  same  principle,  that  is  to  say,  upon  the  principle  that  for 
the  purpose  of  an  account  lands  embraced  by  permanent  Indian  reser- 
vations, should  be  estimated  as  so  much  land  sold." 

The  language  is  somewhat  obscure  and  ambiguous,  but  the  Hon. 
Secretary  means  by  it  simply  this,  I  suppose,  that  the  other  States 
shouhl  be  allowed  five  per  cent,  on  their  Indian  reservations,  and  for 
that  purpose  the  Land  Commissioner  should  state  an  account  with  them, 
on  that  principle — that  is,  on  the  principle  of  allowing  them  five  per 
cent,  on  their  Indian  reservations.  This  all  the  Hon.  Secretary  makes 
out  of  the  second  section.  I  have  already  shown  that  he  has  misquoted 
it,  and  that  "principles,"  not  "principle,"  is  the  word  used.  I  have  also 
shown  that  two  accounts  were  to  be  stated  with  Alabama  and  Missis- 
sippi, and  then  merged  into  one.  The  other  States  were  to  have  their 
accounts  stated  on  the  "same  principles,"  that  is  including  the  account 
»of  the  five  per  cent,  on  public  lands  and  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reser- 
vations, and,  not  merely,  as  the  Hon.  Secretary  has  it,  stating  an  account 
upon  the  "principle"  of  allowing  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations. 

It  seems  to  be  very  generally  feared,  by  those  with  whom  I  have 
talked  upon  the  subject,  that  the  President,  being  a  citizen  of  the  State, 
will  feel  too  much  embarrassed  to  decide  the  claim  in  her  favor.  As 
that  consideration  is  unworthy  of  a  great  mind,  and  has  no  legal  bear- 
ing upon  the  question,  I  am  unwilling  to  believe  it  will  be  allowed  to 
enter  into  its  determination. 

The  truth  is,  there  never  should  have  existed  a  necessity  for  taking  an 
appeal  to  the  President,  and  none  ever  would  have  existed,  if  the  case 
had  not  unfortunately  fallen  into  the  hands  of  those  who  control  the 
Interior  Department,  and  from  whom  Illinois  has  nothing  to  expect  but 
bitter  and  unrelenting  hostility.  This  is  true,  and  I  mean  to  be  honest 
enough  to  say  it.  Indeed,  a  failure  to  proclaim  the  fact  would  be  injus- 
tice to  the  State.  Of  course,  the  appeal  was  not  held  in  the  Interior 
Department  for  six  months  merely  to  enable  the  Secretary  to  make  up 
his  opinion  on  the  law  !  There  was  another  reason  and  another  motive 
for  the  delay,  which  I  intend  to  speak  of  at  the  proper  time. 

The  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  for  whose  integrity  I 
have  the  highest  respect,  and  whose  promptness  and  fidelity  in  the  dis- 
charge of  public  business  is  deserving  of  the  greatest  commendation, 
took  the  right  ground  in  reference  to  the  law  of  1857,  although  I  differ 
with  him  in  the  construction  of  it.  His  position  was  that  it  only  applied 
to  Indian  reservations,  and  consequently  did  not  authorize,  in  his  judg- 
ment, the  payment  of  the  two  per  cent,  on  public  lands.  He  never 
quibbled  or  raised  any  question  ahout  the  expenditures  on  the  National 
road ;  but  properly  comprehended  the  point  that  if  the  law  of  1857  em- 
braced the  per  cent,  on  public  lands,  it  was  folly  to  interpose  the  assump- 
tion that  it  had  already  been  paid  to  the  State.  If  it  provided  for  the 


94 

payment  of  the  per  cent,  on  both  the  Indian  reservations  arid  public 
lauds,  it  followed  as  clear  that  one  could  not  be  paid  without  paying  the 
other ;  because  if  both  objects  were  embraced  in  the  law,  both  were 
equally  entitled  to  be  respected.  Hence  the  Land  Commissioner  de- 
clined to  state  the  account  of  Illinois  on  the  publ  c  lands  for  the  reason 
that,  in  his  judgment,  the  acts  of  1855  and  185Y  applied  or  related  ex- 
clusively to  Indian  reservations.  He  did  not  abandon  that  ground  and 
attempt  to  fortify  his  position  by  asserting  that  the  money  had  been 
expended  years  ago  for  other  objects  !  as  was  done  in  the  Interior  De- 
partment, where,  if  any  such  fact  existed,  they  had  no  legal  right  to  take 
cognizance  of  it.  It  was  the  business  of  another,  and  not  the  Interior 
Secretary's.  It  was  no  concern  of  his  what  had  or  had  not  been  paid 
out  in  the  Treasury  Department.  The  simple  point  he  was  called  upon 
to  decide  was  the  one  decided  by  the  Land  Commissioner,  to-wit :  do 
the  laws  of  1655  and  1857  require  the  statement  of  the  live  per  cent, 
account  on  public  lands  as  well  as  on  Indian  reservations?  If  they  do 
not  it  is  folly  to  talk  about  the  amount  having  already  been  expended 
— if  they  do,  the  law  of  1857  is  imperative  that  it  "shall  be  allowed  and 
paid."  This  is  the  only  rational  view  to  take  of  the  subject.  The 
Land  Commissioner  took  it,  and  confined  his  action  to  the  construc- 
tion which  he  gave  to  the  laws,  without  entering  into  an  extended 
and  laborious  exploration  of  things  past,  to  see  if  he  could  not  possibly 
find  some  extraneous  consideration  to  defeat  their  operation.  That  he 
was  wrong  in  his  construction  of  the  statutes,  I  think  I  have  clearly 
shown  ;  that  he  was  correct  in  confining  his  decision  within  the  teroi|  of 
the  act  of  1857  is  beyond  all  doubt.  If  the  Interior  Secretary  had 
taken  this  course  there  would  be  less  reason  to  complain.  The  law  of 
1857  either  does  or  does  not  confer  upon  the  State  the  right  to  the  money 
I  claim  for  her.  If  it  does  confer  it  that  is  an  end  of  the  matter.  If  it 
does  not  confer  that  is  also  an  end  of  it.  The  State  stands  by  the  law 
•and  protests  against  reasons  being  assigned  for  disregarding  it  which 
rest  on  no  better  foundation  than  the  exhumed  remains  of  obsolete  enact- 
ments. 

I  repeat,  the  State's  claim  must  be  determined  by  the  law  of  1857. 
If  that  embraces  the  per  cent,  on  public  lands  the  United  States  has  no 
escape  from,  its  payment,  except  in  a  determination  of  its  ministerial 
officers  not  to  execute  it.  Though  temporarily  defeated  I  see  no  cause 
for  despondency.  I  have  a  case  which  the  President  understands  and 
respects,  and  will  assuredly  decide  for  the  State,  as  he  believes  the  law 
to  be  with  her,  and  certainly  there  can  be  no  doubt  about  his  power  to 
entertain 'the  appeal. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

I.  K  MORRIS, 
Agent  and  Attorney  jor  the  State. 

QUINCY,  Ochler,  18G3. 


ADDITIONAL  SUPPLEMENTAL  REPORT 


ON   THE 


TWO    PER    CENT.    FUND, 


SUBMITTED   TO   HIS   EXCELLENCY 


RICHARD    YATES, 


GOVERNOR   OF   THE    STATE    OF   ILLINOIS. 


To  His  EXCELLENCY  RICHARD  YATES, 

Governor  of  the  State  of  Illinois : 

SIR — In  October,  1863,  I  submitted  to  you  a  supplemental  report  on 
the  two  per  cent,  fund,  due  from  the  United  States  to  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, for  road  purposes.  The  interest  which  you  have  uniformly  mani- 
fested in  the  subject,  encouraged  me  to  persist  in  pressing  the  State's 
demand.  I  was  still  further  encouraged  by  my  increased  conviction  of 
its  justice.  That  the  State  will  eventually  obtain  the  sum  due  her,  I 
have  not  a  solitary  doubt.  The  right  must  prevail  in  the  end. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  at  the  time  of  the  submission  of  my  sup- 
plemental report,  the  canse  of  the  State  was  still  pending  before  tne 
President,  on  appeal  from  the  Interior  Department.  In  the  early  part 
of  December  following,  I  again  repaired  to  Washington,  and  found  the 
appeal  still  undecided.  I  called  upon  the  President  soon  after,  in  con- 
junction with  Mr.  Washburne,  Judge  Norton,  Mr.  Arnold,  Mr.  Rose, 
Mr.  Knapp  and  Judge  Wm.  J.  Allen,  members  of  Congress  from  the 
State,  and  we  jointly  urged  upon  his  Excellency  the  necessity  of  action. 
He  received  us  kindly,  and  the  interview  terminated  by  leaving  an  en- 
couraging hope.  Delay  still  following,  however,  the  Hon,  O.  H.  Brown- 
ing and  myself,  from  time  to  time,  urged  upon  the  President  to  decide 
the  case,  and  from  day  to  day  expected  a  decision  to  be  rendered.  I 
was  therefore  somewhat  surprised  to  find  it  had  been  referred  to  the 
Attorney  General,  who  held  it  for  nearly  three  months,  although  the 


96 

Hon.  O.  H.  Browning  and  myself  were  almost  daily  importuning  him 
for  action,  and  when  he  finally  delivered  his  opinion  he  ante-dated  it. 

The  following  correspondence  and  subjoined  documents  will  show 
pretty  fully  what  transpired,  in  regard  to  the  claim  I  represented,  at 
Washington  during  my  last  visit  there,  which  commenced  in  the  fore 
part  of  December  and  did  not  terminate  until  April.  I  trust  it  will  be 
found  I  did  all  it  was  possible  to  be  done  in  the  premises,  and  that  my 
course  will  meet  your  approval  and  the  approval  of  the  Legislature  and 
people  of  the  State,  whose  interest  I  have  labored  to  promote  to  the  best 
of  my  ability,  through  a  protracted  controversy. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  Dec.  31,  1863. 
Hon.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Corner  Gen.  Land  Office. 

Sm — Will  you  oblige  the  State  of  Illinois  by  furnishing  to  me,  as  her 
agent,  a  statement  of  the  gross  amount  of  two  per  cent,  of  the  net  pro- 
ceeds arising  from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  made  within  her  limits 
since  January  1st,  1819,  after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the 
same ;  and  in  doing  so  please  specify  particularly  the  amount  of  said 
per  cent,  which  thus  accumulated  after  Congress  had  ceased  to  make 
further  appropriations  for  the  construction  of  the  National  or  Cumber- 
land road. 

I  remain  very  sincerely  and  truly  your  friend, 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  Jan.  5,  1864. 
Hon.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Present. 

SIR — I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of 
the  31st  ult.,  requesting  a  statement  of  the  gross  amount  of  two  per  cent, 
of  the  net  proceeds  arising  from  the  sales  of  public  lands  in  Illinois, 
since  first  January,  1819,  after  deducting  all  expenses  incident  to  the 
same ;  also,  to  specify  the  amount  which  had  accumulated  after  Con- 
gress ceased  to  make  appropriations  for  the  National  or-  Cumberland 
road. 

In  reply  I  have  to  state  that  the  gross  amount  received  for  lands  sold 
from  that  date  to  May  25th,  1838,  was  $11,064,504  03  ;  from  that  date 
to  Dec.  31,  1860,  the  receipts  since  1860  not  warranting  an  adjustment, 
was  $13,794,574  20  ;  total,  $24,859,168  23.  To  which  should  be  added 
the  sum  of  $52,193  24,  the  estimated  value  of  lands  reserved  under 
treaties  with  certain  Indian  tribes — making  an  aggregate  of  $24,911,- 
361  57.  The  expenses  incident  to  the  same  can  only  be  obtained  from 
the  books  in  the  office  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury,  where  the  net 
receipts  may  be  shown,  the  data  in  that  respect  not  appearing  in  our 
records  of  adjustment. 

Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 


97 

WASHINGTON,  Jan.  6,  1864. 
To  His  EXCELLENCY,  A.  LINCOLN,  President  of  the  United  States  : 

Sm — I  beg  leave  to  submit  a  few  additional  considerations,  in  connec- 
tion with  the  claim  of  Illinois  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  arising  from 
the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  within  her  limits. 

The  State  had,  undoubtedly,  a  right  to  know,  from  the  Interior  De- 
partment, upon  what  ground  it  rejected  her  demand.  If  the  law,  ap- 
proved March  3d,  1857,  for  the  settlement  of  certain  accounts  between 
the  United  States  and  the  state  of  Mississippi,  and  other  states,  only 
applies  to  Indian  reservations,  then  that  Department  should  have  rested 
its  objection  upon  it.  If,  however  that  act  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a 
bar  to  the  right  claimed  by  my  State,  and  the  acts  making  appropria- 
tions to  the  National  road  are  insisted  on  as  such  a  compliance  with 
the  terms  of  the  compact  between  the  United  States  and  Illinois,  as  to 
cut  Oif  the  right  of  that  State  to  the  money  claimed  to  be  due  her,  that 
ought  to  be  assigned  as  the  reason  for  withholding  it.  If  the  Honora- 
ble Assistant  Secretary  had  assumed,  exclusively,  one  position  or  the 
other,  as  he  was  bound  to  do  from  the  character  of  the  legislation,  his 
opinion  would  have  been  more  consonant  with  established  legal  rules, 
and  less  disingenuous.  Had  he  fixed  upon  some  definite  and  positive 
enactment  as  a  basis  for,  and  in  justification  of,  his  opinion,  it  would 
have  been  much  wiser  and  safer  than  to  have  relied  on  vagrant  au- 
thority. 

As  to  your  power  to  hear  and  determine  the  case,  I  think  there  can 
be  no  doubt.  In  a  constitutional  sense,  it  was  pending  before  you  from 
the  moment  I  made  the  application  for  the  money  on  behalf  of  the 
State,  in  the  General  Land  Office,  so  that  the  formal  appeal  was  a  work 
of  mere  supererrogation. 

By  the  constitution  you  are  made  the  Executive  to  execute  the  laws. 
By  that  same  instrument  you  are  made  Commander-in-Chief  of  the  army 
and  navy.  By  virtue  of  your  authority  as  such  commander,  you  can 
reverse  the  orders,  decrees  and  proclamations  of  your  inferior  military 
officers,  and  during  the  present  rebellion  have  exercised  that  power.  It 
would  seem  clear,  therefore,  from  analogy  and  parity  of  reasoning,  to 
say  nothing  further  upon  the  subject,  that  you  have  the  right,  as  the 
Executive,  to  reverse  and  annul,  or  overrule,  the  opinions  and  decisions 
of  your  ministerial  executive  officers.  The  same  provision  of  the  con- 
stitution which  confers  upon  you  the  powers  of  a  Commander-in-Chief, 
also  declares  you  "  may  require  the  opinion,  in  writing,  of  the  principle 
officer  in  each  of  the  executive  departments,  upon  any  subject  relating 
to  the  duties  of  their  respective  offices,"  but  it  does  not  declare,  nor  does 
the  constitutioH  anywhere  declare  or  provide,  you  shall  be  bound  by 
such  opinion.  Its  character  is  purely  advisory,  and  was  not  intended 
to  interfere  with  or  obstruct  your  duty  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be 
faithfully  executed.  That  duty  and  that  power  the  constitution  invests 
complete  and  entire  in  yourself.  It  not  only  invests  it  there,  but  it  im- 
poses a  positive  injunction  on  you  to  perform  it.  It  is  an  executive  and 
not  a  judicial  duty. 

The  question  of  the  President's  constitutional  power  and  duty,  in 
cases  where  his  subordinate  executive  officers  refuse  or  neglect  to  exe- 


98 

cute  the  laws,  or  perform  their  duty  under  them,  was  elaborately  and 
ably  discussed,  by  Chief  Justice  Taney,  when  Attorney  General,  in  his 
opinion  rendered  to  the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  28th  of  December, 
1831,  on  the  libel  case  then  pending  before  the  District  Court  of  New 
York,  involving  the  alleged  forfeiture  to  the  United  States,  under  our 
revenue  laws,  of  the  stolen  jewels  of  the  Princess  of  Orange.  To  this 
opinion  you  have  not  heretofore  been  referred,  and  I  beg  leave  to  direct 
your  attention  to  it.  See  Gilpin's  Opinions  of  the  Attorney  Generals, 
pages  853-860. 

The  jewels  were  of  very  great  value — were  stolen  and  brought  to  this 
country  without  the  consent  of  the  owner — were  libelled  by  the  District 
Attorney  of  the  United  States,  and  as  soon  as  they  were  known  to  be 
here  they  were  demanded  by  the  minister  of  the  King  of  the  Nether- 
lands, acting  under  the  direction  of  his  Government,  as  the  property  of 
the  Princess,  who  was  one  of  the  family  of  the  King.  The  District 
Attorney  declined  to  discontinue  the  proceeding  against  them,  and  the 
question  arose  as  tu  the  power  of  the  President  to  direct  him  to  do  it. 
For  convenience,  I  will  give  some  extracts  from  Mr.  Taney's  opinion, 
although  I  have  referred  you  to  it  as  a  whole.  He  says : 

"The  main  question,  and  the  only  one  about  which  there  seems  to  be 
much  difficulty  is,  whether  the  President  may  lawfully  direct  tfce  Dis- 
trict Attorney  to  discontinue  the  libel  now  pending  against  these  jewels 
in  the  district  court  of  New  York.  The  libel  is  in  the  name  of  the  Uni- 
ted States;  it  was  filed  by  their  attorney  in  their  behalf,  and  claims  to 
have  the  property  condemned  as  forfeited  to  the  United  States  for  an 
offense  alleged  to  have  been  committed  against  their  revenue  laws. 

"Assuming  that  the  District  Attorney  possesses  the  power  to  discon- 
tinue a  prosecution,  the  next  inquiry  is,  can  the  President  lawfully  direct 
him,  in  such  a  case,  to  do  so  ?  And  this,  I  understand,  is  the  chief  point 
of  difficulty. 

"  I  think  the  President  does  possess  the  power.  The  interestso  f  the 
country,  and  the  purposes  of  justice  manifestly  require  that  he  should 
possess  it,  and  its  existence  is  necessarily  implied  by  the  duties  imposed 
upon  him  in  that  clause  of  the  constitution  before  referred  to,  which  en- 
joins him  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed.  Cases  readily 
suggest  themselves  which  show  the  necessity  of  such  a  power  to  enable 
him  to  discharge  this  duty. 

"Suppose  a  foreign  ship  with  public  stores  onboard  is  taken  possession 
of  by  a  mutinous  crew  and  brought  to  the  United  States,  that  the  stores 
are  seized  by  the  collector  and  libelled  fora  breach  of  the  revenue  laws, 
and  pending  the  libel  the  foreign  Sovereign  demands  them  of  the  Execu- 
tive of  the  United  States,  and  their  is  no  other  claimant  of  the  property, 
may  not  the  President  order  the  prosecution  to  cease  and  the  stores  to 
be  delivered  up?  Or  must  the  United  States  prosecute,  by  its  officer, 
a  claim  which  it  knows  to  be  unfounded,  against  the  property  of  a  for- 
eign and  friendly  nation. 

"  Indeed,  a  case  might  readily  be  imagined  in  which  justice  to  an  indi- 
vidual would  equally  require  the  existence  of  the  power  and  its  exercise 
by  the  President.  For,  suppose  a  merchant  ship  bound  from  one  foreign 
port  to  another,  is  piratically  seized  upon  by  the  crew,  and  brought  into 
the  United  States,  and  the  goods  of  the  merchant  are  seized  for  a  breach 


99 

of  our  revenue  lawp,  on  a  libel  filed  against  them,  and  suppose  the  offi- 
cer continue  the  prosecution  after  these  facts  are  made  known  to  the 
government;  if  the  President  was  satisfied  that  such  a  prosecution  was 
not  a  faithful  execution  of  the  laws,  but  unjust  and  oppressive  to  the 
innocent  merchant,  would  he  not  have  aright  to  order  the  prosecution  to 
be  discontinued. 

"  If  it  should  be  said  that  the  District  Attorney  having  the  power  to 
discontinue  the  prosecution,  there  is  no  necessity  for  inferring  a  right  in 
the  President  to  direct  him  to  exercise  it.  I  answer,  that  the  direction 
of  the  President  is  not  required  to  communicate  any  new  authority  to 
the  District  Attorney,  but  to  direct  him,  or  aid  him  in  the  execution  of 
the  power  he  is  admitted  to  possess.  It  might,  indeed,  happen  that  the 
District  Attorney  was  prosecuting  a  suit  in  the  name  of  the  United 
States  against  their  interest  and  against  justice,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
oppressing  an  individual.  Such  a  prosecution  would  not  be  a  faithful 
execution  of  the  law.  and  upon  the  President  being  satisfied  that  the 
forms  of  law  were  abused  for  such  a  purpose,  and  being  bound  to  take 
care  that  the  laws  were  faithfully  executed,  it  would  be  his  duty  to  take 
measures  to  correct  the  procedure,  and  the  most  natural  and  proper  man- 
ner to  accomplish  that  object  would  be  to  order  the  District  Attorney 
to  discontinue  the  prosecution.  The  District  Attorney  might  refuse  to 
obey  the  President's  order,  arid  if  he  should  refuse,  the  prosecution,  while 
he  remained  in  office,  would  still  goon,  because  the  President  could  give 
no  order  to  the  court  or  the  clerk  to  make  any  particular  entry.  He 
would  only  act  through  his  subordinate  officer,  the  District  Attorney, 
who  is  responsible  to  him,  and  who  holds  his  ofiice  at  his  pleasure.  And 
if  that  officer  still  continued  a  prosecution  which  the  President  was  sat- 
isfied ought  to  be  discontinued,  the  removal  of  the  disobedient  officer, 
and  the  substitution  of  one  more  worthy  in  his  place,  would  enable  the 
President,  through  him,  faithfully  to  execute  the  law.  And  it  is  for 
-this,  among  other  reasons,  that  the  power  of  removing  the  District  At- 
torney resides  in  the  President. 

"  Upon  the  whole,  I  consider  the  District  Attorney  as  under  the  control 
and  direction  of  the  President,  in  the  institution  and  prosecution  of  suits 
in  the  name  of  the  United  States ;  and  that  it  is  within  the  legitimate 
power  of  the  President  to  direct  him  to  institute  or  discontinue  a  pend- 
ing suit,  and  to  point  out  to  him  his  duty,  whenever  the  interest  of  the 
United  States  is  directly  or  indirectly  concerned.  And  I  find,  on  exami- 
nation, that  the  practice  of  the  government  has  conformed  to  this  opinion, 
and  that,  in  many  instances,  when  the  interposition  of  the  Executive 
was  asked  for,  the  case  has  been  referred  to  the  Attorney  General,  and, 
in  every  case,  the  right  to  interfere  and  direct  the  District  Attorney  is 
as  sumed  or  asserted. 

"  It  may  be  said  that  these  cases  were  not  prosecutions  for  forfeitures 
incurred  by  a  breach  of  the  revenue  laws,  and  that  the  authority  to  remit 
for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  being  given  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  it  cannot  afterwards  be  exercised  by  the  President.  In  reply 
to  this,  I  answer :  First,  that  the  case  upon  which  the  President  is  re- 
quested now  to  act,  is  not  one  given  to  the  Secretary.  He  is  authorized 
to  act  where  a  forfeiture  has  been  actually  incurred — where  an  offense 
against  the  laws  is  admitted  or  proved.  But  the  case  presented  to  the 


100 

President,  if  successfully  made  out,  is  one  in  which  no  offense  has  been 
committed,  and  no  forfeiture  has  been  incurred.  And  if  it  be  shown  to 
be  one  of  this  character,  then  it  is  not  given  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  arid  he  has  no  power  over  it.  In  the  second  place,  if  this  case 
weie  clearly  embraced  in  the  powers  given  to  the  Treasury  Department, 
it  would  not  and  could  not  deprive  the  President  of  the  powers  which 
belong  to  him  under  the  constitution.  The  power  conferred  on  the  Sec- 
retary by  the  law  of  Congress,  would  be  merely  in  aid  of  the  President, 
and  to  lighten  the  labors  of  his  office.  It  could  not  restrain  the  limits  of 
his  constitutional  power." 

1  suppose  no  one  will  doubt  but  that  the  President  has  the  same  power 
over  the  positions  and  acts  of  his  cabinet  officers,  and  the  Commissioner 
of  the  General  Land  Office,  that  he  has  over  the  positions  and  acts  of  the 
district  attorneys.  They  are  but  his  clerks,  subject  to  his  direction,  and 
if  either  of  them  fail  to  execute  a  law,  they,  being  but  the  creatures  of 
his  will,  it  is  his  duty  to  see  that  they  do  it. 

I  submit,  therefore,  that  the  authority  I  have  just  quoted,  and  those 
equally  high,  heretofore  cited,  should  be  regarded  as  of  more  weight  than 
the  opinion  of  the  honorable  Assistant  Secretary,  who  declined,  upon 
my  praying  an  appeal  to  you,  to  "send  up  the  papers,"  assuming  the 
ground,  in  doing  so,  that  his  opinion  was  final  and  conclusive — that, 
although  you  might  differ  from  him  in  the  construction  of  the  law,  still 
you  had  no  right  to  direct  him  to  execute  it — that  "Not  discovering," 
(to  use  the  language  in  his  letter  to  me,)  "from  the  attention  that  I  have 
been  able  to  bestow  upon  the  subject  that  an  appeal  lies  in  such  a  case, 
from  the  decision  of  the  department,  I  shall  await  the  order  of  the  Presi- 
dent in  the  premises" — that  you  had  no  power  or  right,  in  his  opinion — 
for  that  is  the  meaning  of  it — to  look  at  the  papers ;  no  right  to  inquire 
whether  justice  had  been  done  to  Illinois,  whether  the  law  had  been  ex- 
ecuted ;  no  right  to  give  an  opinion  contrary  to  his;  no  right  to  question 
his  act,  thus,  in  effect,  saying  "I  am  greater  than  thou."  This  theory 
and  exposition  of  our  political  organization  seems  to  have  been  unknown 
to  our  earlier  statesmen,  and  has,  for  the  first  time  in  our  history,  been 
seriously  urged  by  a  subordinate  ministerial  officer,  in  defense  of  his  own 
act  and  assumed  superiority. 

If  this  new  reading  of  the  constitution  should  become  the  settled  doc- 
trine of  the  executive  department,  and  be  regarded  as  a  sound  legal  in- 
terpretation of  that  instrument,  I  readily  admit  that  my  State  is  without 
executive  remedy,  and  that  she  has  heretofore  totally  misapprehended 
constitutional  law.  She  has  relied  upon  older  authorities,  but  it  may  be 
that  the  honorable  Assistant  Secretary  has  successfully  overthrown  them, 
and  given  a  direction  to  the  government  different  from  that  it  has  here- 
tofore pursued.  It  is,  indeed,  certain  that  if  you  have  no  authority  to 
look  into  the  act  of  your  subordinates ;  no  authority  to  inquire  whether, 
in  the  case  of  Illinois,  the  law  has  been  executed,  you  have  no  power 
over  the  Interior  Department — no,  not  even  a  supervisory  power — no 
right  to  inquire  whether  it  has  executed  the  laws,  although  the  constitu- 
tion provides  you  shall  "take  care"  that  they  are  executed ;  and  thus  the 
departments  are  exalted  over  the  Executive,  and  a  vital  blow  is  struck 
at  the  supremacy  of  the  constitution. 

I  cannot  believe  that  your  Excellency  will  understand  the  subject  as 


101 

the  honorable  Assistant  Secretary  does,  or  will  so  act  upon  it.  In  your 
letter  to  me,  speaking  of  the  case  of  the  State,  when,  in  the  Interior  De- 
partment, you  say : 

"  When  he  (meaning  the  Interior  Secretary)  shall  have  acted,  if  his 
action  is  not  satisfactory,  there  may,  or  may  not,  be  an  appeal  to  me. 
It  is  a  point  I  have  not  examined  ;  but  if  it  then  be  shown  that  the  law 
gives  such  appeal,  I  shall  not  hesitate  to  entertain  it  when  presented." 

I  trust  it  is  not  too  much  far  me  to  say  it  has  been  shown  you  have 
that  power ;  that  unless  you  possessed  it,  your  dignity  and  office  would 
subordinate  below  the  dignity  and  offices  of  the  creatures  of  your  own 
will  or  appointments.  Such  being  a  constitutional  impossibility  and  un- 
derstanding that,  so  far  as  the  case  of  Illinois  is  concerned,  the  real  and 
only  question  involved  therein  is,  your  power  to  hear  and  pass  upon  her 
rights,  I  rest  under  the  confident  expectation  they  will  be  upheld,  and 
your  Authority  vindicated. 

There  are  some  things  in  this  connection  that  I  ought  to  say  in  justice 
to  my  State,  but  which  I  will  omit.  I  have  endeavored  to  confine  my- 
self, as  far  as  possible,  to  the  great  issue  presented,  and  permit  outside 
pressure  and  influence,  which  has  been  brought  to  bear  against  the  State, 
from  a  certain  quarter,  to  pass  by,  at  least  fer  the  present,  unnoticed. 
They  are  as  detrimental  to  those  engaged  in  producing  them,  as  they  are 
injurious  to  Illinois,  who  has  so  nobly  stood  by  every  duty  required  of 
her,  and  promptly  responded  to  every  call  upon  her  patriotism.  If  she 
is  to  be  denied  by  the  general  government  her  plainest  and  simplest 
rights,  she  must  feel  her  inferiority  among  the  sisterhood  of  States,  and 
grow  more  or  less  indifferent  to  a  government  that  treats  her  unjustly. 
But  if  the  constitutional  requirement  is  disregarded  or  set  aside,  and 
the  legislation  of  Congress  is  relied  on,  that  would  seem  to  be  equally 
clear  in  the  case  of  Illinois,  pending  before  you,  as  it  has  grown  out  of 
and  relates  to  the  public  lands.  The  first  section  of  an  act  (see  (J.  S. 
•  statutes,  vol.  5,  p.  107-8,)  entitled  "An  act  to  organize  the  General  Land 
Office,"  approved  July  4th  1836,  is  as  follows : 

"  Be  it  enacted  by  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States  of  America  in  Congress  assembled,  That  from  and  after 
the  passage  of  this  act,  the  executive  duties  now  prescribed,  or  which 
may  heteafter  be  prescribed  by  law,  appertaining  to  the  survey  and  sale 
of  the  public  lands  in  the  United  States,  or  in  anywise  respecting  such 
public  lands,  and  also  such  as  relate  to  private  claims  of  land,  and  the 
issuing  of  patents  for  all  grants  of  land  under  authority  of  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  shall  be  subject  to  the  supervision  and  control 
of  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office,  under  the  direction  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States." 

This  statute  is  merely  declaratory  of  the  President's  constitutional  duty 
and  power. 

Upon  one  point  your  Excellency  is  laboring  under  a  misapprehension. 
In  your  letter  to  me,  under  date  of  the  26th  of  August  last,  among  other 
things  you  say  : 

"  Now,  my  understanding,  is,  that  the  law  has  not  assigned  me,  spe- 
cifically, any  duty  in  the  case,  but  has  assigned  it  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior." 

The  law,  as  you  will  see  by  again  referring  to  it,  has  not  assigned  to 


102 

the  Interior  Secretary  any  duty,  but  assigned  it  to  the  Commissioner  of 
the  General  Land  Office.  All  the  power  the  secretary  had,  was  to 
decide  the  appeal  upon  the  record  sent  up,  which  he  did  not  do.  The 
acts  of  the  Land  Commissioner  "  in  anywise  respecting  public  lands," 
are  placed  by  the  law  directly  under  your  supervision.  But  the  consti- 
tutional duty  of  directing  the  execution  of  the  laws  rises  to  a  higher 
dignity  than  the  command  of  a  Congressional  statute.  There  is  one 
point  under  which  I  have  been  laboring  under  some  misapprehension, 
though  it  has  been  against  and  not  for  the  State.  I  supposed,  from, 
information  which  I  received,  that  Missouri  had  applied  lor  the  pay- 
ment of  her  two  per  cent,  under  the  act  of  1857,  upon  which  I  rely,  as 
supporting  the  claim  of  Illinois,  and  that  her  representatives  in  Congress 
had  only  resorted  to  the  passage  of  a  special  act,  providing  for  its  pay- 
ment, to  avoid  the  objections  of  reluctant  governmental  Officers.  Such 
seems  not  to  be  the  case.  "With  a  view  of  ascertaining  the  facts  in 
regard  to  the  matter,  and  why  Missouri  did  not  rely  upon  the  legislation 
of  1855  and  1857,  instead  of  asking  for  and  obtaining  a  special  act  for 
her  relief,  I  addressed  the  Hon.  James  S.  Green,  formerly  a  United 
States  Senator  from  Missouri,  a  letter,  and  beg  leave  respectfully  to 
transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  his  reply,  to  which  I  ask  your  special 
attention,  as  it  not  only  states  the  reasons  why  the  special  act  for  Mis- 
souri was  passed,  but  contains  also  a  brief,  yet  exceedingly  lucid  exposi- 
tion of  the  laws  upon  which  rest  the  claim  of  Illinois.  I  have  no  doubt 
but  that  if  my  State  had  the  benefit  of  a  special  act  she  would  be 
resisted  in  the  departments,  as  was  Missouri,  after  she  obtained  her  act, 
since  the  plainest  duty  required  by  the  act  of  1857  towards  her,  to  state 
her  account  that  she  may  know  how  it  stands,  even  if  the  payment  of 
the  sum  due  is  thereafter  denied,  has  been  totally  disregarded,  and  the 
law  set  at  open  defiance. 

As  to  the  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations,  it  would  be  hard  to  con- 
ceive of  or  find  a  reason  to  justify  the  assumption  that  when  Congress 
passed  the  acts  of  1855  and  1857,  it  contemplated  or  even  dreamed  of 
appropriations  made  for  the  construction  of  the  National  road,  ranging 
in  their  date  from  more  than  a  half  to  a  quarter  of  a  century  before, 
being  applied  as  an  offset  by  the  government  to  that  per  cent.  The 
same  is  equally  true  of  the  per  cent,  on  the  public  lands.  One  class  of 
legislation  has  no  reference  to  the  other,  but  each  is  complete  and  inde- 
pendent in  itself.  If  Congress  had  intended  the  offset,  it  would  have 
so  provided,  and  failing  to  make  the  provision,  it  cannot  be  supplied  by 
a  ministerial  officer.  This  doctrine  would  seem  to  be  a  settled  rule  of 
construction,  and  has  been  so  held  in  the  Attorney  General's  Office. 
See  Mr.  Wirt's  opinion  in  "Gilpin's  Opinions  of  the  Attorney  Generals," 
pages  1385-6-7,  wherein  he  determined,  as  early  as  1818,  that  Congress 
having  failed  to  insert,  in  express  terms,  in  an  act  making  an  appropria- 
tion for  the  completion  of  contracts  on  the  National  road,  a  provision 
that  the  sum  appropriated  should  be  reimbursed  to  the  treasury  out  of 
the  two  per  cent,  land  fund  of  Ohio,  it  could  not  properly  or  rightfully 
be  charged  to  that  fund.  The  conclusion  would  hence  seem  irresistible 
that  if  the  government  could  not  charge  the  appropriation  referred  to 
by  Mr.  Wirt,  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Ohio,  it  has  as  little  right  to 
offset  the  sum  expended  on  the  National  road,  in  Illinois,  against  the 


103 

^  appropriation  of  her  two  per  cent,  embraced  in  and  covered  by  the  acts 
of  1855  and  1857",  which  declare  it  shall  be  "stated,  allowed  and  paid," 
and  in  which  there  is  no  provision  for  or  even  intimation  of  such  offset. 
If  any  right  to  make  it  ever  existed,  which  I  affirm  is  not  the  case,  that 
right  was  released  or  relinquished  by  the  subsequent  legislation  referred 
to.  Where  is  the  provision  which  authorizes  the  expenditures  on  the 
National  road  to  be  charged  against  the  two  per  cent,  on  the  Indian 
reservations  in  Illinois?  Where  is  the  provision  which  authorizes  such 
a  charge  to  be  made  against  the  two  per  cent,  land  fund  of  that  State  ? 
There  is  no  such  legislation,  and  no  reference  to  it  in  the  acts  of  1855 
and  1857,  nor  can  they  be  tortured  into  any  such  construction.  So 
plain  are  their  provisions,  so  direct  and  mandatory,  that  the  Honorable 
Assistant  'Secretary  did  not  venture  upon  such  an  experiment.  In  the 
absence,  then,  of  any  such  legislation  or  provision,  the  opinion  of  Mr. 
Wirt  is  conclusive  that  the  expenditures  on  the  National  road  cannot  be 
legally  or  justly  charged  against  the  claim  of  Illinois.  By  the  acts 
referred  to  the  appropriation  is  absolute  and  unconditional,  and  the 
rights  of  the  State  cannot  be  defeated,  except  by  a  total  disregard  of 
them. 

In  other  words,  the  opinion  expressed  by  Attorney  General  Wirt  is, 
in  effect,  that  as  the  act  for  the  appropriation  of  money  towards  the 
building  of  the  National  road  did  not  say  that  the  sum  appropriated 
was  to  be  re-imbursed  to  the  treasury  out  of  the  five  per  cent,  land 
fund,  created  by  the  compact  between  the  United  States  and  the  State 
of  Ohio,  that  appropriation  must  be  regarded  as  an  independent  gift  or 
grant,  and  the  executive  officers  of  the  United  States  could  not  make 
the  five  per  cent,  fund  liable  for  such  additional  and  independent  appro- 
priation. So  the  acts  of  1855  and  1857  are  to  be  regarded  as  independ- 
ent of,  and  having  no  relation  to  the  appropriations  to  the  National 
road.  And  as  they  contain  no  terms  relative  to  an  ofi'set,  re-payment, 
or  re-imburseraent  out  of  any  such  fund,  of  the  sum  required  to  be 
"stated,  allowed  and  paid,"  the  executive  officers  have^uo  authority  to 
subject  such  fund  to  any  such  liability.  Congress,  when  passing  the 
acts  of  1855  and  1857,  was  legislating  upon  the  five  per  cent  arising 
from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  and  providing  for  the  inclusion  therein 
of  the  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations,  and  in  nowise  in  regard  to 
the  expenditures  on  the  National  road.  This  conclusion  is  so  clear  and 
so  inevitable,  both  from  the  laws  themselves  and  the  history  of  their 
passage,  that  all  doubt  on  the  point  is  effectually  and  entirely  removed. 

Every  statute  which  contains  no  terms  connecting  it  with  another, 
must  necessarily  be  construed  by  itself.  The  only  connection  the  laws 
of  1855  and  1857  has,  is  with  the  provision  setting  apart  the  five  per 
cent,  fund  embraced  in  the  enabling  acts  of  the  states  to  which  they 
refer.  They  embrace  appropriations  covering  that  object,  and  the  five 
per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations  and  nothing  more,  and  they  do  this 
without  limitation  or  conditions. 

There  is  a  partial  view  of  the  question  which  1  have  not  separately 
presented,  for  the  reason  I  desired  to  present  it  as  a  whole.  I  will 
mention  it  now,  however,  for  your  reflection,  without  discussing  it. 
The  Assistant  Interior  Secretary  pleads  the  law  making  appropriations 
to  the  National  road  in  bar  of  the  claim  of  Illinois.  A  large  amount 


104 

(and  I  have  taken  steps  to  ascertain  definitely  what  it  is)  of  the  two  per 
cent  road  fund  belonging  to  the  State,  accumulated  in  the  treasury, 
from  lands  sold,  after  all  appropriations  for  the  Cumberland  Road  had 
ceased.  Is  not  the  State  at  least  entitled  to  the  amount  which  thus 
came  into  the  treasury  ?  I  do  not  raise  the  point  with  a  view  of  yield- 
ing any  part  of  the  claim,  but  as  suggestive  of  the  legal  impossibility  of 
the  appropriations  referred  to  being  applied  as  an  offset  to  a  subse- 
quently accumulated  fund. 

The  first  act  making  an  appropriation  to  the  National  road  was 
approved  March  29,  1806,  and  the  last  was  approved  May  25,  1838. 
(See  abstract  of  United  States  Statutes  at  large,  pages  357-8.)  The 
State  was  not  admitted  into  the  Union  until  April  18,  1818,  and  if  her 
two  per  cent,  fund  is  to  be  charged  with  expenditures  on  acteount  of  the 
National  road,  those  made  before  her  admission  cannot  certainly  be  set 
down  against  it,  and  yet  there  would  seem  to  be  as  much  propriety  in 
making  such  a  charge  as  the  one  before  mentioned. 

But  I  have  heretofore  shown  the  want  of  authority  in  the  officers  of 
the  government  to  make  the  charge  referred  to  as  a  whole,  against  the 
State,  especially  in  view  of  the  acts  of  of  1855  and  1857,  and  it  would 
be  out  of  place  to  duplicate  that  argument  in  this  communication.  It 
is,  however,  proper  for  me  to  say,  in  view  of  the  fund  which  accumula- 
ted, after  appropriations  for  the  National  road  had  ceased,  that  Congress 
was  to  "disburse"  it  "in  making  roads  leading  to  the  State."  How 
could  such  "  disbursement "  be  made  when  there  was  no  such  fund,  and 
the  lands  had  not  even  been  sold.  In  my  judgment,  there  can  be  no 
other  legal  interpretation  of  the  sixth  section  of  the  act  admitting  Illi- 
nois into  the  Union,  but  that  the  money  was  to  be  "  disbursed  "  as  it 
accumulated,  or  thereafter.  The  word  "  disburse  "  means  to  "  pay  out; 
to  expend,  to  spend."  How  could  that  be  paid  out,  expended,  or  spent, 
which  had  no  existence?  It  was  evidently  intended,  from  the  language 
used  in  the  section  just  mentioned,  that  Congress  should  not  and  could 
not,  without  the  consent  of  the  State,  make  a  wasteful  expenditure  of 
the  money,  as  it  did,  or  it  would  be  more  proper  to  say  a  wasteful 
expenditure  of  the  money  of  the  government,  and  then  have  its  officers 
to  claim,  in  the  face  of  an  act  recognizing  her  right  to  it,  that  the  treas- 
ury was  to  be  reimbursed  out  of  it.  The  language  of  the  sixth  section 
pre-supposes  the  existence  of  the  fund  before  its  distribution,  and  any 
anterior  use  of  it,  I  insist,  was  unauthorized  by  the  compact  between 
the  United  States  and  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  in  palpable  violation  of 
her  rights.  Her  representatives  in  Congress  would  be  continually 
increasing,  and  new  interests  might  arise  which  would  give  a  different 
direction  to  an  accumulated  fund,  to  that  which  it  might  take  when 
anticipated.  The  State,  too,  as  she  advanced  in  population  and  repre- 
sentation, would  be  better  able  to  protect  her  rights.  However,  I  have 
said  I  would  not  discuss  this  point,  nor  will  I.  I  have  thrown  out  but 
a  few  suggestions  upon  it,  which  I  think  are  sound  and  well  taken. 

Having  now,  as  I  trust,  performed  my  duty  to  the  Governor,  Legisla- 
ture and  people  of  my  State,  and  said  this  much  in  addition  to  what  I 
before  have  said,  I  hope  to  stand  vindicated  in  their  judgment,  and 
have  respectfully  to  inquire  how  soon  it  will  be  convenient  for  your 
Excellency  to  dispose  of  the  cause  of  the  State.  I  am  fully  sensible  of 


105 
I 

"the  great  and  important  duties  pressing  upon  you,  and  although  the 
interest  of  Illinois  is  of  vital  moment  to  her,  I  will  not  unduly  urge 
it  to  the  detriment  of  your  Excellency's  convenience  in  other  more 
pressing  matters. 

The  result  is,  of  course,  with  you.  The  authorities  would  seem  to  be 
sufficient  on  the  legal  points.  No  one  has  ever  questioned  the  equity 
of  the  claim.  I  assume  that  I  fully  appreciate  what  some  may  suppose 
to  be  the  delicacy  of  your  position,  being  a  citizen  of  the  State,  but  that 
consideration  constitutes  no  reason  why  justice  should  be  withheld  from 
her,  nor  will  it  influence  a  great  mind  like  your  own. 

I  have  the  honor,  Mr.  President,  to  subscribe  myself,  your  obliged 
and  humble  servant, 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 

WASHINGTON  CITY.  January  21, 1864. 
HON.  EDWARD  BATES,  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  : 

Sin  : — I  have  been  unofficially  informed,  but  I  do  not  question  the 
correctness  of  the  information,  that  his  Excellency,  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  has  referred  to  you,  for  legal  determination,  the  question 
of  his  power  to  direct  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  to 
execute  the  law  of  the  third  of  March,  1857,  passed  for  the  benefit  of 
Mississippi  and  other  States,  in  pursuance  of  my  application  on  behalf 
of  the  State  of  Illinois,  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  her 
rights  under  said  act. 

As  the  claim  which  I  presented  for  my  State  has  been  pending  since 
December,  1857,  and  which,  during  the  past  year,  I  have  been  prose- 
cuting under  the  authority  ot%  the  Governor  and  Legislature  thereof,  is 
one  of  no  ordinary  interest  and  importance  to  the  people  of  Illinois, 
-you  would  confer  a  great  favor  upon  them  if  you  would,  at  an  early 
period,  render  your  opinion  upon  the  point  referred  by  his  Excellency 
to  you. 

I  presume,  sir,  you  have  been  placed  in  possession  of  my  original 
and  supplementary  report  to  the  Governor  of  my  State,  relating  to  the 
matter  of  the  claim,  and  of  my  communication  to  the  President  on  the 
same  subject,  under  date  of  the  6th  instant,  which  was  accompanied  by 
a  letter  addressed  to  me,  by  the  Hon.  James  S.  Green,  in  which  the 
statement  of  facts  therein  contained  and  the  legal  deductions  therein 
drawn,  were  indorsed  and  concurred  in  by  the  Hon.  Frank  P.  Blair,  in 
a  written  communication  to  me  made  on  yesterday. 

The  latter  managed  the  claim  of  Missouri  in  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, and  the  former  in  the  Senate. 

But  as  the  single  point  of  the  President's  power  to  act  in  the  case  of 
Illinois,  now  pending  before  him,  has  been  referred  to  you  for  your 
opinion  thereon,  you  will  find,  if  you  desire  to  consult  them,  my  argu- 
ments in  support  of  said  power  in  my  reviews  of  the  Hon.  Assistant 
Secretary's  opinions,  all  of  which  reviews  and  opinions  are  contained  in 
'  my  supplemental  report,  and  in  my  letter  to  the  President  of  the  6th 
instant.     You  will  also  find  the  arguments  of  the  Hon.  Reverdy  John- 
son, in  support  of  said  power,  in  his  opinion  published  in  said  supple- 
mental report. 
—11 


106 

I  am  fully  sensible  I  have  not  the  right  to  appear  before  you,  under 
the  rules  of  your  office,  in  support  of  my  view  of  the  question  you  have 
been  called  upon  to  determine,  and  I  have  neither  a  desire  or  wish  to 
interfere  with  those  rules  ;  yet  I  suppose  it  will  not  be  improper  for  me 
to  refer  you  to  the  case  of  McFadon  vs.  the  Exchange,  (7  Cranch,  116,) 
in  which  the  President  "directed  the  Attorney  General  and  the  district 
attorney  in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties,  and  they  obeyed  his 
direction.  He  and  they  acted  on  the  principle  that  the  President  had 
a  right  to  point  out  to  them  the  manner  in  which  their  diiferent  duties 
were  to  be  performed." 

Again  invoking  your  early  action  in  behalf  of  my  State,  which  has 
been  long  delayed,  I  remain 

Yours,  very  sincerely, 

I.  N.  MORRIS, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  Illinois. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  January  28,  1864. 

To  HIS  EXCELLENCY,  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN, 

President  of  the  United  States  : 

SIR  : — Some  three  weeks  ago  you  referred  to  the  Attorney  General  a 
single  point  in  the  case  of  Illinois,  for  his  opinion  thereon.  It  was,  I 
understand,  as  to  your  jurisdiction. 

A  few  days  ago  I  saw  Judge  Bates  and  had  a  conversation  with  him 
on  the  subject.  In  that  conversation  I  spoke  of  the  long  delay  Illinois 
had  been  subjected  to,  and  respectfully  desired  to  know  how  soon  his 
opinion  would  be  rendered.  To  this  inquiry  he  made  no  definite  an- 
swer. I  then  asked  him  if  he  would  furnish  me  a  copy  of  his  opinion, 
when  it  was  ready,  saying,  that  I  supposed  it  would  not  be  improper  for 
me,  as  agent  and  attorney  of  the  State,  to  examine  it,  especially  as  it 
would  be  a  public  document.  His  answer  to  this  was,  that  he  could  not 
furnish  copies  of  his  opinions  without  asking  Congress  to  allow  him 
additional  clerks.  1  can,  therefore,  only  anticipate  from  his  remarks, 
which  were  frank,  what  his  conclusion  will  be,  and  in  doing  so,  I  beg 
to  assure  your  Excellency  that  I  have  no  intention  or  desire  to  intrude 
upon  the  established  usages  of  the  Executive  Department.  My  only 
object  is  to  do  justice  to  my  State,  and  that  much  I  think  I  ought  to  do. 
IJshall,  however,  be  very  brief  in  what  I  have  to  say. 

The  Attorney  General,  if  I  rightly  comprehend  his  views,  will  hold 
that  the  account  of  Illinois  must  be  stated  under  the  law  of  1857 — that 
you  have  the  power  and  it  is  your  duty  to  order  its  statement,  but  that 
you  have  no  power  to  direct  the  mode  or  manner  of  its  statement.  This 
seems  to  me  to  be  a  curtailment  of  the  executive  duty  ''to  take  care  that 
the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,"  unwarranted  by  the  constitution.  I 
admit  that  you  are  no  judicial  officer,  no  court,  no  accounting  officer, 
but  insist  that  you  are  clothed  with  all  the  attributes  of  executive 
authority,  necessary  to  the  enforcement  of  the  laws,  directory  to  your- 
self, or  the  creatures  of  your  own  appointment,  who  are  but  the  conve- 
niences of  the  Executive  Department  of  the  government. 

While  you  are  not  an  accounting  officer,  or  a  secretary,  or  a  land  com- 
missioner, it  does  not  follow  that  you  have  no  power  to  look  into  the 


107 

manner  in  which  these  functionaries  discharge  their  respestive  duties.  I 
admit  you  cannot  perform  all  the  duties  yourself,  of  the  various  executive 
departments,  and  that  it  was  not  contemplated,  in  the  organization  of 
the  government,  you  should  ;  still  this  does  not  interfere  with  the  consti- 
tutional obligation  resting  upon  you  to  see  that  the  laws  are  executed, 
when  it  is  made  known  to  you  that  they  have  not  been. 

Comparatively  but  few  such  cases  arise  in  the  course  of  an  adminis- 
tration, and  it  is  in  just  such  cases  that  the  President  is  required  to  in- 
terfere. The  provision  of  the  constitution  that  "the  President  shall  take 
care  that  the  laws  be  executed"  is  broad,  and  covers  all  acts  coming 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Executive  Department ;  and  evidently 
contemplates  cases  were  subordinates  might  refuse  to  execute  the  laws. 
The  responsibility,  therefore,  of  their  execution  was,  by  the  constitution, 
thrown  upon  the  President,  in  whom  is  invested  this  attribute  of  execu- 
tive sovereignty. 

Attorney  General  Gushing,  in  his  elaborate  opinion  on  the  relation  of 
the  President  to  the  Executive  Department,  (see  opinions  of  the  Attor- 
ney General,  vol.  7th,  pages  464,  469,  470,)  says : 

"In  speaking  of  the  subordination  of  the  departments  to  the  Presi- 
dent, we  are  to  understand,  of  course,  that  the  several  executive1  bureaus 
are  included,  for  they  are  themselves  subordinate  to  tHe^portmeiits 
under  the  supervision  of  which  they  are  placed  resp'eetivsely^whether 
by  statute  or  by  order  of  the  President."  .ii  fci  jfoiiiv/  w 

Again :  /soqrni  JneintiacroC 

c5  i  t  JL 

"Take  now  the  converse  form  of  legislaticrb^tUatoosmmbjl  of  most  ordi- 
nary style,  in  which  an  executive  act  is,  b^itew/ifequwredto'-tte  performed 
by  a  given  head  of  department.  I  thi6<k!h«re>fcbeL>genei-aliriile  to  be  as 

-already  stated,  that  the  head  of  department  is  •&&?€<&  fa  t&£'<Mveetion  of 
the  President.  I  hold  that  no  head  of  department  <xm  tawjfwlty  perform 
an  official  act  against  the  wttZ  of  itfie*  President }  'andthcdAaillis,  by  the 
constitution,  to  govern  the  p&fdnR&KC6itfmtt$ni&^ntt8;  i  Jf  it  were  not 
thus,  Congress  mightfey  iftta^Htdn-soadividtelaTid:  trahsfer*  tbe  executive 
power  as  utterly torsubv!drt7tl]je<gofrieiJnm8iit,  swad  >to<<5ming&  it  into  a  par- 
liamentary dea^tiem^iifcethatof  ;Yeni'ceojt>G^eafe^rit3ini  with  a  nomi- 
nal executive  chief,  ntteriyr  powierless, , whetfreraiwder-tiiie  t»ame  of  Doge, 
or  Kin^,  prPresidenlij.woHMitheflibC'KDf^litUeia^buritj  soiar  as  regards 
the  qraeBtiori  of ;theirtointenancie'rot!  tbeiconefcituticaii^  ny;Ir5t*im  G  y 

r.!  >If  ^oUfkaXnediapowert'O: 'diredtf  the  iiand;  Comiiiisei^ner'to  etate  the 
dccoTinfc  ;6f  >  DMnfoisriinliezvthei act ; of  nlfiftfy it'rwaould  keens t»"be  clear  that 

;  voii liave  an^equal-powento  direct •himtlfa^ftoifaiate'iti'f?  F-or;tbe  reason 

'thatif'thejLaBdGif>mf?iisedonerym'»talihg  it,  floeanot  etaitfeit  in  compli- 
ance with  the  law,  as  you  may  understand! dt^it'i^:a9miB«li  an  effectual 

;:vio'lation;bf  theQ:awl:a8vif:la^  riet'u64d>!to;JBtatie<it  alii  c'A  wrongful  state- 
ment'^ it  would.  be;no  legal sfetenient^' but  ft- statemeottin opposition  to, 

.«nd in  delegation  6f  the  law,  and-then  the-law.wouldmotlbeex^cuted.  The 
'power  to  direct  the;  statement  ;of -the  account  i necessarily  carries  with  it 
the  incident  to  that  i^wer.  -  .UD<§eF8ubh:a'State"of  fact 'would  it  not  be 
your  duty  to  see  that  the  slaw  !was  exiecuted  ?  r  /Hbe  doctarine- 1  have  laid 

.r>dawBi  but  do  not  iaterid  to  elaborate  upooa,  was  faeldbyiMrL  Whittlesey, 

:  ona;of ..thosafeat:  aiuiaiHestv  GomjStEoWersJot'iili^-'Ti'easuTy  4he  govern- 
ment ever  had,  when  passing  the  Galphin  claim  for  interest.  In  that 


108 

instance  he  was  directed  by  his  superior  officer  how  to  execute  his  duty, 
and  he  passed  the  claim  as  an  "administrative  act"  and  not  his  own. 
Numerous  other  cases,  of  a  similar  character,  could  be  cited,  but  I  will 
not  trouble  your  Excellency  with  but  one  more.  I  refer  to  that  of 
McFadon  vs.  the  Exchange,  (7  Cranch,  116,)  in  \\rjiich  the  President 
"directed  the  Attorney  General  and  district  attorney  in  the  discharge 
of  their  official  duties,  and  they  obeyed  his  direction.  He  and  they 
acted  on  the  principle  that  the  President  had  a  right  to  point  out  to  them 
the  MA.NJNER  in  which  their  different  duties  were  to  be  performed." 

To  direct  the  performance  of  an  act  and  refuse  or  neglect  to  direct 
the  manner  of  its  performance,  is  to  leave  undone  the  important  part  of 
the  direction.  Almost  every  day  officers  in  the  field  are  directed  by  the 
Commander-in-chief,  or  his  Secretary  of  "War,  acting  under  his  direc- 
tion, how  and  in  what  particular  manner  to  perform  their  duties. 

If,  for  instance,  an  accounting  officer  of  the  treasury  had  refused  to 
pass  a  part  of  an  account,  arising  under  an  act  of  Congress,  say  the  act 
for  compensating  owners  in  the  District  of  Columbia  for  manumitted 
slaves,  upon  the  ground  that  too  much  had  been  paid  for  particular  ones, 
or  upon  some  other  frivolous  pretext,  that  would  have  been,  a  mode  or 
manner  of  discharging  his  duty  which  would  not  have  been,  and  very 
properly  too,  long  tolerated. 

The  doctrine  I  believe  to  be  too  well  settled  to  require  discussion, 
that  a  law  which  is  mandatory  or  directory  to  a  member  of  the  Execu- 
tive Department,  imposes  upon  the  President  an  obligation  equally 
binding  "to  take  care  that  it  be  executed,"  as  if  it  were  particularly  man- 
datory or  directory  to  himself.  If  it  were  not  thus,  interior  officers,  not 
accountable  to  the  people,  could  abrogate  the  legislative  will,  block  the 
wheels  of  the  executive  power,  and  we  would  have  a  thousand  Presi- 
dents instead  of  one. 

A  simple  direction  to  the  Land  Commissioner  to  state  the  account  of 
Illinois  would  virtually  be  a  direction  to  him  to  disallow  her  claims,  if 
the  ruling  of  the  Interior  Department  should  be  adopted  and  followed. 

If  every  thing  is  to  be  done  but  to  pay  the  State  the  money  she 
claims,  and  her  hope  of  receiving  that  is  to  turn  to  ashes  on  her  lips, 
if  she  is  to  be  delayed  for  years,  and  then  the  government  is  to  escape 
from  the  payment  of  her  demand,  because  of  what  I  humbly  conceive 
to  be  a  mistaken  rule  of  construction  which  the  Attorney  General  will 
put  upon  the  executive  powers  of  the  President,  subordinating  them 
below  the  powers  of  a  mere  accounting  officer,  she  will  have  labored  to 
little  purpose  in  establishing  her  rights.  If  a  mandamus  would  lie 
against  an  officer  of  the  United  States  there  might  be  less  reason  to  call 
for  Presidential  interposition. 

I  hope  Illinois  is  not  to  be  turned  back  to  a  result  which  I  have,  from 
the  first,  admitted  to  exist  if  the  appropriations  for  the  National  road 
are  to  be  charged  against  her  two  per  cent.  fund.  She  would  not  have, 
however,  a  fear  of  the  result  of  her  application  in  the  hands  of  any 

fovern mental  officer,  if  she  had  confidence  to  believe  he  would,  as  she 
nows  your  legal  mind  will  lead  you  to  do,  apply  the  principles  of  con- 
struction laid  down  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  (see  2d 
Cranch)  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Fisher,  in  which  the  court 
say : 


109 

"It  is  undoubtedly  a  well  established  principle  in  the  exposition  of 
statutes  that  every  part  is  to  be  considered  and  the  intention  of  the 
legislature  extracted  from  the  whole." 

A  grain : 

"When  the  intent  is  plain,  nothing  is  left  to  construction.  Where  the 
mind  labors  to  discover  the  design  of  the  legislature,  it  seizes  everything 
from  which  aid  can  be  derived  ;  and  in  such  case  the  title  claims  a  degree 
of  notice  and  will  have  its  due  share  of  consideration." 

I  shall  not  be  able  to  see  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  before 
you  will  act  upon  it,  and  in  all  probability  not  before  it  shall  appear  in  a 
printed  volume.  I  beg  you  to  consider  that  fact  as  a  justification  of 
this  communication. 

Although  not  strictly  within  the  scope  or  object  of  this  letter,  allow 
me  to  say,  that  I  have,  within  a  few  days,  received  from  the  Hon.  Frank 
P.  Blair,  after  mature  deliberation  and  examination  on  his  part,  a  writ- 
ten communication,  in  which  he  sustains  the  facts  and  legal  deductions 
contained  in  the  letter  of  Hon.  James  S.  Green,  a  copy  of  which  I  sent 
you. 

I  have  also  received  a  certificate  from  the  Hon.  O.  M.  Hatch,  Secre- 
tary of  State  for  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  send  it  herewith  for  your  in- 
spection, showing  that  the  Legislature  of  that  State  has  never  passed  an 
act  or  resolution  accepting  the  work  done  on  the  National  road  within  her 
limits,  in  lieu  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  or  declared  the  track  of  said  road 
a  State  road.  In  view  of  these  facts,  is  it  too  much  to  ask  that  a  liberal 
construction,  such  as  the  late  Interior  Secretary,  Mr.  Thompson,  gave 
them  and  said  they  should  receive,  should  be  given  to  the  acts  of  1855 
ahd  1857.  But  a  rigid  construction  of  said  acts  will  give  to  Illinois  the 
sum  she  claims.  The  only  way  she  can  be  kept  out  of  her  rights  is  to 
violently  drag  in  other  enactments,  with  which  the  ones  I  have  just 
named,  have  no  connection. 

Can  any  good  reason  be  assigned  why  the  whole  five  per  cent,  should 
be  paid  to  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  and  a  like  allowance  and  payment 
bo  denied  to  Illinois? 

I  remain,  with  great  respect, 

Your  Excellency's  obedient  servant, 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 

QUINCY,  ILLINOIS,  November  30,  1863, 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS: 

DEAR  SIR  :  My  attention  has  recently  been  directed  to  your  corres- 
pondence with  the  officers  at  Washington  City  for  the  purpose  of  pro- 
curing payment  of  two  per  cent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
public  lands  in  this  State.  And  I  confess  I  was  not  aware  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  law  under  which  you  claim  payment,  until  you  brought  it 
before  the  public. 

When  in  the  United  States  Senate,  I,  with  my  colleagues  in  both 
Houses  of  Congress,  procured  the  passage  of  a  special  law  for  a  similar 
payment  of  two  per  cent,  to  Missouri;  but  if  we  had  noticed  the  general 
provision  of  the  second  section  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1857,  we  would 
have  relied  alone  upon  it,  without  waiting  the  tardy  and  uncertain 


110 

action  of  Congress,  and  I  should  have  felt  confident  in  obtaining  the 
two  per  cent,  to  which  the  State  was  justly  entitled,  without  any  further 
legislation.  And  here,  I  may  remark,  is  illustrated  the  impropriety  of 
connecting  a  general  provision,  with  a  special  bill,  unless  the  title  clearly 
indicates  its  character.  This  provision  in  the  act  for  Mississippi,  in 
connection  with  the  act  for  Alabama,  on  the  same  subject,  and  thereby 
re-enacted,  is  ample  and  explicit,  and  would  have  been  relied  upon  by 
us  if  it  had  not  escaped  our  observation.  But  although  we  obtained  a 
special  law  for  the  two  per  cent,  of  Missouri,  we  were  met  under  it  by 
the  officers  of  the  United  State's  Treasury  with  the  same  objections  and 
subteriuges  that  you  have  to  encounter  when  applying  for  Illinois. 
However,  I  finally  obtained  a  reference  of  the  question  to  the  Attorney 
General,  who  promptly  decided  in  favor  of  Missouri,  and  the  money 
was  accordingly  paid.  I  have  no  doubt  the  same  thing  would  have 
occurred  under  the  laws  on  which  you  rely. 

These  laws  direct,  in  substance,  an  account  to  be  stated  with  Alabama 
and  Mississippi,  of  the  whole  Jive  per  vent,  of  the  net  proceeds  of  sales 
of  public  lands,  and  also  to  include  the  Indian  reservations ;  and  then 
the  last  section  directs  a  similar  account  with  each  of  the  other  states, 
and  t©  allow  and  pay  the  same.  Language  could  not  be -plainer. 
There  is  an  account  to  be  stated,  allowed  and  paid,  independent  of  the 
Indian  reservations,  and  then,  if  any  of  these,  they  are  to  be  included. 
This  inclusive  part  necessarily  implies  something  preceding,  and  it 
might  be  entirely  stricken  out  of  the  law,  and  the  enactment  remain, 
both  intelligible  and  effective,  retaining  the  primary  object  of  the  law — 
the  inclusive  part  being  nothing  but  the  incident,  ifet  the  pretext  of 
the  officers  would  make  this  little  incident  everything,  and  render  the 
legislation  of  Congress  both  absurd  and  »onsensical.  I  feel  obliged  to 
you  for  having  brought  this  subject  to  light. 

Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  GREEN. 

As  well  as  my  recollection  serves  me,  I  concur  in  the  statement  of 
facts,  and  I  agree  in  the  conclusions  of  the  above  letter  of  Hon.  James 
S.  Green. 

FRANK  P.  BLAIR,  JB. 

"WASHINGTON  CITT,  January  20,  1864. 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMEKICA,  ) 
STATE  OF  ILLINOIS.  j    s' 

I,  O.  M.  Hatch,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  hereby 
certify  that  I  have  carefully  examined  the  files  of  my  office,  and  that  1 
am  unable  to  find  that  the  Legislature  of  this  State  ever  passed  any 
law  or  resolution,  accepting  the  work  done  upon  the  National  road  .b>y 
the  United  States  within  this  State,  in  lieu  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund, 
which  said  State  was  to  have  expended  under  the  direction  of  Congress, 
in  making  roads  leading  thereto,  under  and  by  virtue  of  the  sixth,  sjeic- 
tion  of  the  act  providing  for  her  admission  into  the  Union-.  J.fwtjier 
certify  that  I  cannot  find  any  act  or  resolution  passed; ;by;the.,I;eg.islia- 
ture  of  said  State,  declaring  all,  or  any  part,  o£  w.hat  ;ieLj3fr, piftji ,be 


Ill 

claimed  to  be  a  part  of  said  National  road,  lying  within  the  limits  of 
said  State,  a  State  road. 

In  testimony  whereof  I  hereunto  subscribe  my  name  and  affix  the 
[  L.  s]     great  seal  of  State,  at  the  city  of  Springfield,  this  22d 
4  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1864:. 

O.  M.  HATCH,  Secretary  of  State. 

WASHINGTON,  D.  0.,  February  15,  1864. 
To  His  EXCELLENCY,  A.  LINCOLN, 

President  of  the  United  States: 

SIR  —  It  is  now  more  than  one  year  since  I  commenced,  under  your 
administration,  the  prosecution  of  the  claim  of  Illinois  against  the  Uni- 
ted States  for  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  and  more  lhan  half  of  that  time 
I  have  spent  in  Washington.  Whatever  of  energy  or  zeal  I  had  has 
been  unceasingly  bestowed  upon  the  case  of  the  State,  and  no  one 
moment  which  I  could  turn  to  account,  or  supposed  I  could,  has  been 
wasted,  but  all  the  which  I  have  urged  and  implored  the  executive 
officers  for  action.  The  whole  business  could  and  should  have  been 
disposed  of  in  three  weeks.  But  delay  has  followed  delay,  and  the 
State  has  been  baffled  at  every  possible  point.  Each  succeeding  subor- 
dinate functionary  into  whose  hands  the  case  has  fallen,  except  the 
Land  Commissioner,  and  it  has  been  compelled  to  run  a  long  and  terri- 
ble gauntlet,  has  thrown  his  arm  affectionately  around  its  neck  and  held 
it  to  his  embrace  as  long  as  possible,  and  while  apparently  caressing  it 
w.ith  kindness,  has  adroitly  endeavored  to  stop  its  breath  with  his  hand. 
If  it  is  to  be  strangled  by  those  whose  duty  it  is  to  give  it  a  fair  legal 
hearing  and  prompt  decision,  as  is  now  generally  believed  by  the  citi- 
zens of  the  State  who  are  here,  it  is  due  to  her  and  to  fairness  that  it 
should  be  done  at  once.  Anything  is  better  than  undue  suspense. 

The  State  has  another  remedy  which  she  cannot  avail  herself  of  until 
that  provided  in  the  Executive  Department  shall  have  been  entirely 
exhausted,  and  in  her  name  and  on  her  behalf  I  protest,  as  her  duly 
appointed  representative,  against  her  sustaining  further  injury  and  loss 
by  the  non- action  of  government  officials.  Already  that  loss  has  been 
great,  and  justice  to  her  forbids  that  I  should  longer  delay  to  remon- 
strate, respectfully  but  earnestly,  against  its  further  augmentation.  A 
little  more  delay  will  carry  her  case  over  another  year  if  she  is  forced 
to  seek  for  justice  outside  of  executive  authority.  Shall  she  be  thus 
treated  ? 

I  have  all  along  insisted  and  believed  that  your  Excellency  would 
order  the  execution  of  the  laws.  I  believe  so  still,  and  shall  continue 
so  to  believe  until  it  is  otherwise  made  manifest. 

If  Congress  did  not,  by  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1857,  for  the  settle- 
ment of  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the  State  of 
Mississippi  and  other  states,  re-enact  the  fifth  section  of  the  act  approved 
March  1,  1857,  to  enable  the  people  of  the  western  part  of  the  Missis- 
sippi Territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  State  government,  which  seta 
apart  and  invests  the  right  in  that  State  of  the  five  per  cent,  arising 
from  the  sales  of  the  public  lands,  and  other  acts,  subsequently  passed, 
connected  therewith,  for  the  payment  of  three  and  two  parts  of  it,  and 


112 

direct  a  similar  payment  of  five  per  cent,  to  the  other  states,  of  which 
Illinois  is  one,  it  would  be  impossible  to  find  legislative  language  which 
could  do  it. 
With  respect  and  consideration,  I  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

I.  K  MORRIS. 

Can  I  be  permitted  to  see  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  after 
its  rendition  and  before  final  action  thereon  ?  I  should  like  to  do  so. 

M. 

Finally,  after  long  and  anxious  delay,  the  opinion  of  Attorney  Gen- 
eral Bates  was  rendered.  Through  what  channel  it  found  its  way  to 
the  Interior  Department  I  never  could  learn.  Although  I  had  inquired 
for  it  at  the  General  Land  Office  until  I  had  become  literally  ashamed 
of  asking,  the  first  I  knew  about  it,  it  was  in  the  hands  of  thg  Interior 
Secretary,  and  had  been  acted  on  by  him,  though  his  action  does  not 
appear  of  record,  in  the  face  of  the  decision  itself  which  declares  the 
secretary  had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  question.  The  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office,  following  the  ruling  of  the  Interior  Secretary,  at 
once  acted  in  the  premises,  and  if  I  had  reason  to  complain  before  of  the 
non-action  of  government  officials,  I  certainly  had  no  cause  to  make  any 
such  complaint  after  the  case  got  back  from  the  Attorney  General's 
office  into  the  Interior  Department.  Instant  dispatch  was  used  in  dis- 
posing of  it  in  my  absence  and  without  my  knowledge,  and  it  looks 
very  much  as  if  there  was  design  in  the  mode  of  proceeding.  If  such 
was  the  case  it  will  avail  nothing  in  the  end. 

The  following  correspondence  at  once  transpired,  subsequent  to  which 
I  obtained  a  copy  of  the  account,  as  stated,  a  copy  of  the  opinion  of  the 
Attorney  General,  etc: 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  March  30,  1864. 
Honorable  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office  : 

SIR  —  I  understood,  for  the  first  time  to-day,  upon  inquiry  made  of 
your  chief  clerk,  Hon.  Joseph  Wilson,  that  some  action  had  been  taken 
in  your  office  in  regard  to  stating  an  account  with  the  State  of  Illinois, 
of  the  two  per  cent,  claimed  to  be  due  her  from  the  proceeds  of  the 
public  lands  sold  within  her  limits.  Will  you  therefore  be  kind  enough 
to  furnish  me,  at  as  early  a  period  as  possible— 

1.  With  a  copy  of  the  account,  stated. 

2.  With  a  copy  of  the  order  upon  which  it  was  stated. 

3.  Information  showing  to  whom  the  account,  when  stated,  was 
delivered,  and  whether  his  Excellency,  the  President,  made  any  order 
in  the  premises,  and  if  so,  what  it  is. 

I  desire  this  information  to  enable  me  to  determine  what  course  to 
adopt  in  the  future.  Permit  me,  however,  to  say  that  had  I  known, 
when  the  case  of  the  State  was  returned  to  your  office,  I  should  have 
asked,  in  behalf  of  myself  and  associate  counsel  to  be  heard  upon  it, 
before  it  was  finally  disposed  of,  or  the  mode  or  manner  of  stating  the 
account.  This  poor  privilege  was  denied^Bot,  I  am  satisfied,  through 


113 

any  design  or  agency  of  yours.     Was  the  account  stated  in  accordance 
with  the  ruling  of  your  office,  or  that  of  the  Interior  Department? 
Your  friend  and  obedient  servant, 

I.  K  MORRIS, 
Agent  and  Attorney  far  Illinois. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  April  1,  1864. 
Hon.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Agent  for  Illinois,  Present. 

SIR —  In  reference  to  the  subject  of  your  note  of  the  30th  ultimo, 
^esterday,  received,  I  have  to  inform  you  that  the  statement  of  the 
account  in  regard  to  the  Illinois  reserved  two  per  cent,  fund  has  not  yet 
been  consummated.  When  completed  and  finally  acted  upon,  you 
shall  be  furnished  with  the  desired  copy  of  the  statement  in  question, 
or  of  any  papers  on  our  files  in  the  premises  you  may  deem  necessary. 
Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 

The  Attorney  General's  opinion  is  as  follows,  and  I  ask  for  it  a  care- 
ful reading,  being  satisfied  it  has  not  injured  but  strengthened  the  claim 
of  the  State. 

ATTORNEY  GENERAL'S  OFFICE,  March  8, 1864. 
To  THE  PRESIDENT  : 

SIR — I  beg  to  be  excused  for  the  long  delay  which  has  happened  in 
answering  upon  the  matter  which  you  referred  to  me,  some  time  in  Jan- 
uary last,  touching  the  claim  of  the  State  of  Illinois  against  the  United 
States,  on  account  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund,  so  called.  I  lost  several 
weeks  by  sickness,  and  then  business,  both  in  the  office  and  in  the 
Supreme  Court,  which  would  not  brook  delay,  compelled  me  to  postr 
pone  the  consideration  of  this  matter  until  now. 

The  memorandum  which  you  sent  me  does  not,  specifically,  state  the, 
questions  or  points  of  law  upon  which  you  require  my  opinion.  But, 
judging  from  a  careful  examination  of  your  memorandum,  and  some  of 
the  papers  which  accompanied  it,  I  suppose  the  questions  intended  fof 
my  consideration  may  be  fairly  stated  in  the  following  form  ; 

Under  the  acts  of  March  2,  1855,  and  March  3/1857,  "  the,  State  of 
Illinois  has  applied  to  have  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office  state  an  account  between  the  United  States  and  said  State,  and  to 
have  allowed  and  paid  over  to  said  State  such  amount  as  shall  thus  be 
found  due.  The  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  to  whose  Department  the 
General  Land  Office  and  the  Commissioner  thereof  pertain,  takes  cog- 
nizance of  the  case,  and  disallows  the  claim  of  the  State  to  have  either 
payment  or  accounting.  From  this  decision  of  the  Secretary  of  the  In- 
terior, the  State  appeals  to  you,  as  President  of  the  United  States,"  and 
asks  you  to  do,  as  President,  what  the  statutes  require  to  be  done,  by 
the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land  Office.  And  so  the  question  is — 
Has  the  State  of  Illinois  any  legal  right  to  take  such  appeal,  and  there- 
by impose  upon  the  President  the  legal  duty  to  do  what  the  law  plainly 
requires  to  be  done  by  the  Commissioner,  i,  e.,  to  state  the  account,  etc.  f 
—12 


1U 

I  am  clearly  of  the  opinion  that  no  such  appeal  lies.  The  President 
is  not  the  accountant  general  of  the  nation — is  not  an  auditor  or  comp- 
troller of  accounts. 

The  act  of  March  3d,  1857,  section  2,  II  Stat,  200,  declares  "  That 
the  said  Commissioner  shall  also  state  an  account  between  the  United 
States  and  each  of  the  other  states,  upon  the  same  principles,  and  shall 
allow  and  pay,"  etc.  By  the  terms  of  this  act  no  powers  are  granted  to, 
nor  duties  imposed  upon,  either  the  President  or  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior,  but  only  to  and  upon  the  Commissioner  of  the  General  Land 
Office.  And  is  it  now  to  be  denied  that  Congress  has  power  to  distri-- 
bute  the  ministerial  functions  of  government  among  the  functionaries  of 
its  own  creation  ?  The  practice  is  coeval  with  the  government,  and  is 
in  actual  exercise  every  day.  In  fact  the  contrary  theory  is  simply  im- 
possible, in  practice,  for  neither  the  President  nor  any  head  of  a  Depart- 
ment could,  by  any  degree  of  laborious  industry,  revise  and  correct  all 
the  acts  of  all  his  subordinates.  And  if  he  could,  as  the  law  now  stands 
it  would  be  as  illegal  as  unwise. 

Although  the  President  cannot  be  substituted  for  all  his  subordinates, 
and  required  to  do  all  their  work,  in  any  contingency,  yet,  doubtless,  in 
one  sense,  he  has  a  general  oversight  of  all  the  officers  of  the  govern- 
ment. For,  by  the  constitution,  it  is  his  duty  to  "  take  care  that  the 
laws  be  faithfully  executed."  And,  in  the  discharge  of  that  duty,  he 
will  of  course  act  according  to  the  subject-matter  and  the  nature  of  each 
case  before  him.  If  the  party  who  will  not  execute  the  law  be  a  Judge, 
the  President  cannot  perform  his  judicial  duties.  All  he  can  do  is  to 
give  the  proper  information  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  who  may, 
if  it  think  proper,  apply  the  remedy  of  impeachment.  But  if  the  offen- 
der be  a  ministerial  officer,  civil  or  military,  the  remedy  is  in  the  Presi- 
dent's own  hand,  and  of  easy  application.  He  has  nothing  to  do  but 
turn  him  out  and  fill  his  place  with  another  man. 

Under  the  act  of  185T,  it  is  the  plain  duty  of  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office  to  state  the  account.  I  think  he  ought  to  be  re- 
quired to  do  it,  for  no  one  else,  (not  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior  nor  the 
President,)  can  do  it  for  him. 

It  is  no  objection  to  stating  the  account,  that  the  Commissioner  thinks 
there  is  no  balance  in  favor  of  the  claimant,  for  if  that  be  so,  the  fact 
will  appear  all  the  plainer  when  the  account  is  stated.  I  forbear  all 
farther  argument  and  content  myself  with  referring  you  to  numerous 
opinions  of  my  predecessors,  (as  collated  below,)  by  which  the  doctrines 
I  advance  are  fully  settled  for  this  office. 

The  question  of  the  President's  power  to  interfere  with  the  action  of 
the  accounting  officers  in  the  settlement  of  accounts,  repeatedly  came 
before  Attorney  General  "Wirt,  and  he  held  that  the  duty  imposed  upon 
the  President  to  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  placed 
the  officers  engaged  in  the  execution  of  the  laws  under  his  general 
superintendence,  and  required  him  to  see  that  they  did  their  duty  faith- 
fully, and,  on  their  failure,  to  cause  them  to  be  displaced,  prosecuted  or 
impeached,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  case.  But  it  did  not  mean 
that  he  should  execute  the  laws  in  person,  which  would  be  absurd  and 
impossible ;  that  where  the  laws  require  a  particular  officer  by  name  to 
perform  a  duty,  not  only  must  he  perform  it,  but  no  other  officer  can 


115 

lawfully  do  so,  and  were  the  President  to  perform  it,  so  far  from  taking 
care  that  the  laws  were  faithfully  executed,  he  would  be  violating  them 
himself ;  and  he  held  that  the  President  had  no  power  to  interfere  with 
the  accounting  officers  so  long  as  they  performed  their  duties  faithfully 
(1  Op.  At.  Gen.,  624  ;  ibid  636  ;  ibid  678  ;  ibid  706.) 

Although  Attorney  General  Taney,  in  Thorp's  case,  (2  Opinions  463,) 
seemed  to  think  that  where  a  claim  had  been  rejected  by  the  accounting 
officers,  and  their  decision  confirmed  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  an  appeal 
might  lie  to  the  President,  it  is  clear  that  such  was  not  his  well  consid- 
ered opinion.  For  in  Grice's  case,  (2  Op.,  481,)  where  the  claim  was 
rejected  by  the  accounting  officers,  he  declared  that  no  appeal  would  lie 
from  their  decision  to  the  President.  And,  in  General  Taylor's  ease, 
(2  Op.,  507,)  where  the  President  was  asked  to  dismiss  a  suit  on  the 
ground  that  the  accounting  officers  had  not  allowed  certain  credits,  At- 
torney General  Taney  advised  him  that  the  law  contemplated  no  appeal 
to  the  President,  and  that  he  did  not  possess  the  power  to  examine  into 
the  correctness  of  the  accounts  to  repair  errors  that  the  accounting  offi- 
cers appointed  by  law  might  have  committed.  Again,  in  Hogan's  case, 
where  the  President  was  asked  to  order  the  allowance  of  certain  claims 
against  the  United  States,  which  the  accounting  officers  had  rejected, 
Attorney  General  Taney  advised  him  that  such  an  appeal  would  not  lie 
to  him,  and  that  he  could  not  legally  interfere.  These  three  cases  un- 
doubtedly express  the  authoritative  opinion  of  that  distinguished  officer 
on  this  question. 

To  the  same  effect  is  the  opinion  of  Attorney  General  Crittenden,  in 
Pratt's  case,  (not  printed,)  and  his  elaborate  opinion  in  5  Op.,  636, 
wherein  he  reviews  the  precedents,  and  reaches  the  conclusion  that  the 
President  has  no  authority  to  interfere  in  the  settlement  of  accounts  on 
appeal  to  him. 

In  this  opinion  Mr.  Crittenden  also  maintains,  with  great  ability  and 
learning,  the  rightful  authority  of  the  heads  of  departments  to  interfere 
"a  priori  or  a  posteriori"  in  the  settlement  of  accounts  of  their  respec- 
tive departments,  and  this  principle  has  been  accepted  by  nearly  all  his 
successors,  and  may  now  be  regarded  as  settled.  It  results,  therefore, 
that  a  power  of  interference  with  the  accounting  officers  exists  in  the 
heads  of  departments,  which  is  not  conceded  to  exist  in  the  President. 
Although  Attorney  General  Gushing  calls  this  an  "  anomaly  of  rela- 
tion," (6  Op.,  343,)  it  is  conceived  that  good  reasons  exist  for  the  dis- 
tinction. The  rule  which  has  thus  forbidden  the  President's  inter- 
ference in  the  settlement  of  accounts  by  the  accounting  officers,  has  also 
been  applied  to  other  cases.  Where  an  appeal  was  taken  from  the  de- 
cision of  the  Secretary  of  War,  approving  the  action  of  the  Commis- 
sioner of  Pensions,  in  disallowing  a  claim  for  an  increase  of  pension, 
Attorney  General  Mason  advised  the  President  against  entertaining  the 
appeal,  and,  after  citing  the  opinions  of  Messrs.  Wirt  and  Taney,  said 
that  the  President  could  not  adequately  perform  his  high  constitutional 
duties  if  he  were  to  undertake  to  review  the  decisions  of  subordinates 
on  tne  weight  or  effect  of  evidence  in  cases  appropriately  belonging  to 
them. 

Where  the  state  of  Iowa  claimed  certain  lands,  under  a  grant  by  Con- 
gress, and  a  question  arose  as  to  the  extent  of  the  grant,  and  the  proper 


116 

officers  differed  on  that  question,  the  President  was  asked  to  decide  the 
question,  but  Attorney  General  Crittenden  advised  him  that  the  act  of 
Congress  did  not  provide  for  or  appear  to  intend  any  interposition  by 
the  President,  and  that  his  interference  with  the  performance  of  the  par- 
ticular duties  assigned  by  law  to  subordinate  officers,  either  to  correct 
errors  or  supply  omissions,  would,  in  the  general,  be  exceedingly  inju- 
dicious, if  at  all  warrantable,  and  would,  moreover,  involve  him  in  an 
endless  and  invidious  task,  occupying  his  whole  attention,  and  leaving 
no  time  for  higher  duties.  He  gave  the  same  opinion  where  the  Presi- 
dent was  invoked  to  interfere  on  behalf  of  certain  parties  for  the  decision 
and  settlement  of  questions  arising  out  of  a  contradfand  purchase  of 
lands  made  by  them  from  the  Seneca  Indians,  (5  Op.,  275.) 

In  conclusion,  I  adopt  the  language  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States,  (1  How.,  297,)  as  an  accurate  and  authoritative  statement 
of  the  law  on  the  subject.  "The  President's  duty,  in  general,  requires 
his  superintendence  of  the  administration  ;  yet  this  duty  cannot  require 
of  him  to  become  the  administrative  officer  of  every  department  and 
bureau,  or  to  perform  in  person  the  numerous  details  incident  to  services 
which,  nevertheless,  he  is,  in  a  correct  sense,  .by  the  constitution  and 
laws  required  and  expected  to  perform.  This  cannot  be,  first,  because 
if  it  were  practicable,  it  would  be  to  absorb  the  duties  and  responsibili- 
ties of  the  various  departments  of  the  government  in  the  personal  action 
of  the  one  chief  executive  officer.  It  cannot  be,  for  the  stronger  reason 
that  it  is  impracticable,  nay,  impossible." 

I  am,  Sir,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
EDWARD  BATES, 

Attorney  General. 

REMARKS  ON  THE  OPINION  OF  THE  ATTORNEY  GENERAL. 

After  quoting  what  I  suppose  is  the  language  of  the  President's 
memorandum,  accompanying  the  papers  transmitted  by  him  to  the  At- 
torney General,  that  officer  says :  "And  so  the  question  is,  has  the 
State  of  Illinois  any  legal  right  to  take  such  appeal,  and  thereby  impose 
upon  the  President  the  legal  duty  to  do  what  the  law  plainly  requires 
to  be  done  by  the  Commissioner,  i.  e .,  to  state  the  account,  &c.  I  am 
clearly  of  the  opinion  that  no  such  appeal  lies.  The  President  is  not  the 
accountant  general  of  the  nation — is  not  an  auditor  or  comptroller  of 
accounts." 

The  learned  Attorney  General  mistates  the  case,  doubtless  uninten- 
tionally, and  then  draws  a  conclusion  from  the  erroneous  premises.  I 
never  pretended,  nor  do  I  know  of  its  ever  being  pretended,  by  any 
one,  that  the  President  was  "Accountant  General"  of  the  nation,  or  an 
"Auditor,"  or  a  Comptroller,  or  that  he  was  bound  to  make  up,  or  per- 
sonally superintend  making  up, -the  accounts  of  such  officers.  Because 
he  is  not  bound  to  do  this,  the  learned  Attorney  General  assumes  the 
ground  that  no  appeal  lies,  in  the  case  of  Illinois,  to  the  President. 
What  I  have  affirmed,  and  what  is  the  settled  ruling  of  the  Attorney 
General's  office  is  this,  that  while  it  is  wholly  impracticable,  nay,  irnpos- 
Bible,  for  the  President  to  execute,  in  person,  all  the  laws,  it  is,  never- 


117 

theless,  his  solemn  duty,  enjoined  by  his  oath  of  office,  "to  take  care 
they  are  executed."  In  cases  where  it  is  made  known  to  him  that  his 
subordinates  have  not  executed  them,  he  is  to  see  that  they  do  it,  and  if 
they  fail  upon  direction  to  do  it,  it  is  his  duty  to  turn  them  out,  and  ap- 
point others  who  will  execute  them.  In  every  case  where  he  has  the 
right  to  appoint  and  remove  an  officer  at  will,  he  is  responsible  for  his 
conduct,  and  the  officer  is  amenable  to  him  for  every  dereliction  of 
duty,  and  what  can  be  a  more  serious  one  than  failing  to  execute  the 
laws.  In  cases  where  the  tenure  of  the  office  is  fixed  by  the  constitu- 
tution,  such,  for  instance,  as  that  of  a  supreme  judgeship,  the  President 
is  not  responsible  for  the  manner  in  which  the  incumbent  performs  his 
duty,  for  the  reason  he  has  no  power  over  him.  Such  functionary  be- 
longs to  a  different  and  co-ordinate  department  of  the  government,  and 
his  case  is  not  to  be  confounded  with  one,  where  an  executive  ministe- 
rial officer,  who  is  but  the  convenience  of  the  President,  fails  to  discharge 
his  duty.  It  will  hardly  be  seriously  insisted,  I  apprehend,  by  the 
learned  Attorney  General,  that  such  an  officer  is  above  the  power  of  the 
President  to  correct  his  errors  and  require  the  performance  of  his  omis- 
sions of  duty.  "What  I  have  claimed  is,  that  subordinate  executive  offi- 
cers have  not  executed  the  laws  bearing  upon  the  two  per  cent,  road 
fund  to  the  State,  as  the  President  has  interpreted  them,  and  that  hence  it 
.  is  incumbent  on  him  to  see  that  they  do  it,  for  the  reason  that  he  is  bound 
to  "take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,"  as  HE  understands 
them,  and  not  as  they  may  be  interpreted  by  his  inferiors  or  clerks.  Some- 
how or  other  there  seems  to  be  a  strange  propensity  in  some  of  the  de- 
partments at  "Washington,  to  make  up  false  issues  with  the  State,  and 
then  try  her  cause  upon  them.  I  put  it  to  the  learned  Attorney  General 
to  say  whether,  if  the  President  is  satisfied  that  one  of  his  subordinate 
officers  has  not  executed  (I  will  state  the  case  direct)  the  laws  requiring 
the  payment  to  Illinois  of  the  sum  she  claims,  it  is  not  his  constitutional 
duty  to  direct  those  laws  to  be  fulfilled.  To  attempt  to  relieve  him  from 
that  duty  by  a  mere  dash  of  the  pen,  that  ho  is  not  "Accountant  Gener- 
al" of  the  nation,  or  an  "Auditor,"  or  "Comptroller,"  is  hardly  worthy 
of  the  great  reputation  of  the  learned  Attorney  General.  I  fear  that  if 
his  legal  fame  should  rest  upon  the  assumption  that,  because  the  Presi- 
dent is  neither  of  these  things,  he  is  not  therefore  bound  "to  take  care 
that  the  laws  are  executed,"  it  would  soon  disappear  from  among  the 
illustrious  expounders  of  constitutional  law. 

The  very  authorities  which  the  learned  Attorney  General  himself 
cites,  are  against  him.  They  sustain  the  real,  and  are  irrelevant  to  his 
hypothetical  case.  Instance  the  quotation  at  the  conclusion  of  his  opin- 
ions, from  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States,  (1 
How.,  297,)  wherein  the  court  say,  "The  President's  duty,  in  general,  re- 
quires his  superintendence  of  the  administration ;  yet  this  duty  cannot 
require  of  him  to  become  the  administrative  officer  of  every  department 
and  bureau,  or  to  perform,  in  person,  the  numerous  details  incident  to 
services,  which,  nevertheless,  he  is,  in  a  correct  sense,  by  the  constitu- 
tion and  laws  required  and  expected  to  perform." 

The  doctrine  here  laid  down  by  the  court  is  undoubtedly  correct.  It 
is  that  in  a  "correct  sense"  the  President  is  required  by  the  "constitu- 
tion and  laws"  to  become  the  administrative  officer  of  every  department 


118 

and  bureau,  yet  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  perform,  in  person,  the  nu- 
merous details  incident  to  services  which  are  required  of  him.  The  em- 
ployment of  others  is  a  matter  of  convenience,  and  to  facilitate  the  dis- 
charge of  public  business  and  does  not  and  cannot  divest  the  President 
of  any  part  of  his  attribute  of  executive  power  and  responsibility.  I 
have  never  asked  the  President  to  state  in  person,  the  account  of  Illinois, 
but  I  have  asked  him  to  see  that  the  laws  were  executed.  I  have  asked 
him  to  direct  his  subordinates  to  execute  themf  If  he  is  made  conscious 
that -an  account  has  been  wrongfully  stated,  it  is  plain  thai:  that  is  no 
legal  statement  of  it,  and  consequently  no  statement.  To  state  an  ac- 
count is  to  comply  with  the  law.  A  wrongful  statement  is  no  state- 
ment. 

The  supreme  court  say,  in  their  opinion  quoted  from  by  the  learned 
Attorney  General,  "the  President's  duty,  in. general,  requires  his  super- 
intendence of  the  administration." 

What  does  this  mean  but  that  he  is  required  to  see  that  his  subordi- 
nates properly  execute  the  laws.  This  is  all  the  State  lias  ever  asked  of 
him,  and  all  she  desires  him  to  do. 

The  learned  Attorney  General,  in  his  opinion,  lays  down  the  true 
ground.  I  should  have  had  no  cause  to  complain  of  his  action  if  he  had 
let  the  case  of  the  State  alone  as  I  presented  it,  and  as  it  is,  and  not 
changed  it  so  as  to  place  it  in  juxtaposition  with  his  doctrine.  He  ad- 
mits, while  insisting  properly  enough,  that  the  President  cannot  be  sub- 
stituted for  all  his  subordinates  and  required  to  do  all  their  work,  that 
he  has,  "in  one  sense,  a  general  oversight  of  all  the  officers  of  the  gov- 
ernment, and  that  it  his  duty  to  turn  out  a  ministerial  officer  who  fails 
to  execute  the  laws,  and  put  one  in  his  place  who  will  execute  them." 

If  the  President  believes  that  the  laws  relating  to  the  payment  of  the 
two  per  cent,  to  Illinois  have  been  executed,  all  he  has  to  do  is  to  say 
so.  But  it  appears  he  does  not  believe  it.  His  opinion  of  them  is 
so  clear  that  he  did  not  even  refer  to  the  learned  Attorney  General,  the 
question  of  their  exposition — only  the  one  of  jurisdiction.  Had  he  not 
been  entirely  satisfied  on  the  point  of  construction,  he  undoubtedly 
would  have  called  for  the  opinion  of  the  learned  Attorney  General  upon 
it.  The  Interior  Department  never  asked  for  it,  or  manifested  a  will- 
ingness to  risk  the  case  upon  it.  Occupying  the  position  of  a  suitor,  I 
had  no  right  to  call  for  it.  Only  the  government  could  demand  or  re- 
quire it,  and  that  appears  to  have  preferred  the  opinion  of  subordinates 
on  the  merits  of  the  question. 

But  I  will  not,  in  this  report,  enlarge  the  argument  in  support  of  the 
views  I  have  here  expressed.  They  have  heretofore  been  sustained  by 
citations  to  judicial  decisions  and  the  opinions  of  Attorney  General's, 
too  numerous  and  overwhelming  to  be  overthrown.  To  evade  the  real 
issue  is  to  yield  the  question  of  right  to  the  State. 

There  is  one  additional  argument,  however,  used  by  the  learned  At- 
torney General,  to  show  that  the  State  had  no  right  to  carry  her  cause  to 
the  President,  which  it  is,  perhaps,  my  duty  to  notice  briefly.  He  as- 
sumes that  because  the  act  of  Congress,  approved  March  3d,  1857,  enti- 
tled, "An  act  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and 
the  State  of  Mississippi  and  other  States,"  '^directory  to  the  Land  Com- 
missioner, that,  therefore,  it  is  no  concern  of  the  President  to  see  that  it 


119 

is  executed.  And  yet  the  learned  Attorney  General  says,  in  his  opinion, 
"Under  the  act  of  1857,  it  is  the  plain  duty  of  the  Commissioner  of  the 
General  Land  Office  to  state  the  account.  I  think  he  ought  to  be  re- 
quired to  state  it." 

Required  by  whom  ?  Who  could  require  him  to  state  it  but  the  Presi- 
dent, and  if  he  could  require  him  to  state  the  account,  could  he  not  re- 
quire him  to  state  it  correctly  ?  If  he  has  jurisdiction  over  the  question 
at  all,  he  has  it  over  all,  and  not  over  a  part  of  it.  Some  laws  the  Presi- 
dent is  required  to  execute  in  person,  others  are  directed  to  his  subordi- 
nates. The  latter  class  he  is  required  to  see  executed.  The  doctrine 
has  long  been  settled  by  the  very  highest  authorities,  (see  Attorney 
General's  opinions,)  that  a  law  imposing  a  duty  on  a  ministerial  officer 
imposes  a  duty  on  the  President  to  see  that  he  performs  it.  The  Presi- 
dent could  »ot,  if  he  would,  escape  from  the  obligation. 

It  will  be  seen  by  an  examination  of  the  learned  Attorney  General's 
opinion,  that  he  has  decided  two  important  points  in  favor  of  the  State, 
and  sustained  the  views  I  have  uniformly  expressed  upon  them,  and 
overruled  those  expressed  by  the  Interior  Secretary  and  the  Land  Com- 
missioner. I  refer  to  his  ruling  that  the  act  of  1857  embraces  the  per 
cent,  on  the  public  lands  as  well  as  the  per  cent,  on  the  Indian  reserva- 
tions, and  requiring  the  Commissioner  to  state  the  account  of  Illinois  on 
.both.  He  also  decides  that  the  Interior  Secretary  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  case. 

But  one  other  question  remains  undisposed  of,  and  that  is  how  shall 
that  account  be  stated  ?  The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  statement  of  it, 
made  out  in  the  General  Land  Office,  under  the  supervision  of  the  In- 
terior Secretary,  and  the  question  is,  is  it  in  compliance  with  the  law  f 
I  have,  in  my  previous  reports,  so  fully  argued  this  point  that  it  is  be- 
lieved to  be  wholly  unnecessary  to  say  but  a  word  or  so  upon  it  now, 
especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  I  shall  soon  discuss  it  fully  before  the 
First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury. 

There  is  no  pretense  that  the  acts  passed  for  the  benefit  of  Alabama 
and  Mississippi,  which  will  be  found  in  my  original  report,  pages  6  and 
7,  contemplated  that  any  offset  should  be  used  or  charged  against  the 
accounts  required  to  be  stated,  other  than  the  actual  payments,  in 
money,  before  that  time  made.  This  is  not  only  apparent  from  the 
language  of  the  acts  themselves,  but  the  conclusion  is  placed  beyond  all 
doubt  whan  it  is  recollected  there  were  no  other  kind  of  offsets  to  apply. 
The  acts  simply  provided  that  the  two  and  three  per  cent,  accounts  of 
Alabama  and  Mississippi  should  be  restated,  and  if  any  part  of  either, 
upon  such  restatement,  remained  unpaid,  it  should  be  paia,  and  five  per 
cent,  on  the  Indian  reservations  included  therein.  It  seems  to  me  that 
nothing  can  be  plainer.  Alabama  and  Mississippi  wanted  just  that 
legislation  and  nothing  more.  They  wanted  and  asked  for  the  five 
per  cent,  on  the  Indian  reservations  within  their  respective  limits,  and 
whatever  remained  unpaid  of  the  five  per  cent,  arising  from  the  sales  of 
the  public  lands.  They  were  not  contemplating,  nor  was  Congress,  ex- 
penditures on  the  Cumberland  road  at  the  time  said  laws  were  passed, 
and  there  is  no  man  at  all  acquainted  with  the  history  and  character  of 
the  legislation,  silly  enough  to  believe  it.  The  accounts  are  required  to 
be  stated  "  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  what  sum  or  sums  of  money 


120 

are  due  to  said  states,  heretofore  unsettled,"  etc.,  that  is,  heretofore  un- 
paid, and  to  include  the  five  per  cent,  on  Indian  reservations  therein, 
and  pay  the  sum  thus  found  to  be  unpaid  or  "unsettled" 

The  second  section  of  the  Mississippi  act  enjoins  upon  the  Commis- 
sioner of  the  General  Land  Office  to  "  also  state  an  account  between  the 
United  States  and  each  of  the  other  states,  upon  the  same  principles," 
that  is,  in  the  same  way,  mode  or  manner,  "  and  allow  and  pay  to  each 
state  the  amount  that  shall  thus  be  found  due,  estimating  all  lands  and 
permanent  reservations  at  $1,25  per  acre."  If  the  amount  thus  "  found 
due"  was  not  to  be  "allowed  and  paid,"  where  the  necessity  of  requir- 
ing the  account  to  be  stated,  unless  the  "  other  states  "  were  to  be  placed 
upon  an  equal  footing  with  Alabama  and  Mississippi,  and  the  same 
principle  of  payment  was  to  be  observed  towards  them  that  was  to  be 
observed  towards  those  states,  the  said  second  section  of  the  act  of 
March  3d,  1857,  is  without  object  and  without  meaning,  and  it  is  hardly 
to  be  presumed  that  the  committee  on  Public  Lauds  in  the  Senate 
would  have  added  it  to  the  bill,  except  for  a  wise  and  just  purpose. 

But  the  Attorney  General  having  determined  that  the  account  of  Illi- 
nois must  be  stated  under  the  act  of  1857,  disposes  of  the  whole  ques- 
tion, for  there  can  be  no  doubt  of  the  "  principles  "  upon  which  it  must 
be  stated.  The  conclusion  therefore  is,  that  the  expenditures  on  the 
Cumberland  road  were  resorted  to  as  a  mere  departmental  evasion. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  April  2,  1864. 
Hon.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Agent  and  Atfy  for  Illinois^  Present  : 

SIR — Referring  to  my  letter  of  the  1st  inst,  in  reply  to  yours  of  the 
30th  ult,  I  now  inclose  a  copy  of  the  statement  of  the  Illinois  reserved 
two  per  cent.  fund.  The  statement  has  been  sent  to  the  Hon.  1st  Comp- 
troller of  the  Treasury.  Copies  of  any  papers  on  our  files,  in  regard  to 
this,  which  you  may  desire,  will  be  furnished  on  your  application. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  EDMUKDS, 

Commissioner. 

[  Report  No.  17,984.  ] 

DEPARTMENT  OF  THE  INTERIOR, 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFOE,  March  17,  1864. 

SIR — I  have  examined  as  to  the  condition  of  the  reserved  two  per 
cent,  fund  on  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  within  the  limits  of  the  State 
of  Illinois,  from  January  1st,  1819,  to  December  31st,  1860,  in  view  of 
the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress  approved  April  18,  1818,  of  the 
act  approved  3d  March,  1857,  "  to  settle  certain  accounts  between  the 
United  States  and  the  state  of  Mississippi  and  other  states,"  and  find  as 
follows,  viz : 


121 

That  two  per  cent,  on  the  net  proceeds,  viz  :  $23,705,984  66  of  sales 
of  the  public  lands  within  said  State,  during   the  period  aforesaid, 

amounts  to „.    $474,119  69 

That  two  per  cent,  upon  the  aggregate  of  41,754  59-100 
acres  of  Indian  reserves,  amounting  to  $52,193  24,  val- 
ued at  $1,25  per  acre,  under  said  act  of  1857,  amounts  to  1,043  86 

$475,163  55 


This  sum,  $475,163  55,  by  the  express  terms  of  the  3d 
stipulation  in  the  5th  section  of  the  Illinois  Enabling  Act 
of  April  18,  1818,  being  reserved  to  be  disbursed  "  under 
the  direction  of  Congress,"  in  "making  roads  leading  to 
the  State." 

I  also  find  that  the  said  two  per  cent,  fund  stands 
chargeable  in  this  connection  on  account  of  the  construc- 
tion of  the  Cumberland  road,  under  the  acts  of  31st  May, 
1830,  2d  March,  1831,  3d  July,  1832,  2d  March,   1833, 
24th  June,  1834,  2d  July,  1836,  2d  March,  1837,  and  25th 
May,  1838,  (U.  S.  S.,  Vol.  4,  pages  427,  469,  557,  649, 
680,  Vol.  5,  pages  71,  195,  and  228,)  and  according  to  the 
official  certificate  A,  herewith,  bearing  date  March  15th, 
1864,  from  the  acting  Register  of  the  Treasury,  in  the 
sum  of  ............................................    $739,879  99 

Showing  not  only  that  there  is  no  balance  due  by  the 
United  States,  on  account  of  said  fund,  but  that,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  sum  of  ..................  .  .........      264,716  44 

has  been  expended  "  under  the  direction  of  Congress" 

on  this  account,  in  excess  of  the  aforesaid  reserved  two  -- 

per  cent,  fund  of  .................................    $475,163  55 

[There  have  been  no  net  proceeds  since  January  1st,  1861,  the  inci- 
dental expenses  and  repayments  having  been  largely  in  excess  of  the 
receipts  from  sales.] 

As  appears  from  the  foregoing,  and  the  certificate  of  the  acting  Regis- 
ter of  the  Treasury,  which  is  respectfully  submitted  to  the  First  Comp- 
troller of  the  Treasury  for  his  action  and  decision  thereon. 

J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 
Hon.  R.  W.  TAYLOB,  First  Compt.  of  the  Treasury. 


Statement,  showing  the  payments  and  repayments  on  account  of  the 
construction  of  the  Cumberland  road,  in  the  State  of  Illinois  : 

Payments  in  1830  ..........................  $12,155  00 

«              1831  ..........................  33,361  00 

«             1832  ..........................  87,500  00 

«              1833  ..........................  40,000  00 

«              1834  ..........................  51,75203 

«             1835  ..........................  109,000  00 


122 

Payments  in  1836 42,231  9T 

"             1837. .  1/k 58,452  66 

"             1838 84,000  00 

"             1839 128,520  00 

"             1840. 99,027  34 


$746,000  00 

Repayments  in  1842 $4,700  00 

"  1845 1,420  01 

6,120  01 


$739,879  99 

R.  SOLGEK,  Acting  Register. 
TREASURY  DEPARTMENT, 

REGISTER'S  OFFICE,  March  15£A,  1864. 

The  Land  Commissioner  says,  in  the  foregoing  account,  "  I  also  find 
that  the  said  two  per  cent,  stands  chargeable  in  this  connection,  on  ac- 
count of  the  construction  of  the  Cumberland  road,  under  the  acts  of  the 
31st  of  May,  1830,  2nd  of  March,  1831,  etc.,  and  according  to  the  offi- 
cial certificate  'A,'  herewith,  bearing  date  March  15,  1864,  from  the 
acting  Register  in  the  Treasury,  in  the  sura  of  $739,879  99."  This 
finding  is  not  upon  any  claim  or  offset  existing  in  his  office,  the  Com- 
missioner informs  us,  but  is  based  upon  the  u  official  certificate  "  of  the 
acting  Register  in  the  treasury.  Denying  the  right  of  the  Interior  De- 
partment to  act  officially  on  any  matter  in  the  Treasury  Department, 
and  properly  under  its  control  and  disposal,  let  me  ask,  without  discuss- 
ing: the  question  of  jurisdiction,  if  the  statement  of  the  acting  Register 
referred  to,  bears  out  and  justifies  the  Commissioner  in  making  the 
charge  he  did  against  the  State.  The  Commissioner  informs  us  that  he 
made  that  charge  "  according  "  (to  use  his  own  word)  to  that  certificate. 

Now,  what  is  that  certificate  ?     The  caption  of  it  reads  as  follows : 

"  Statement  showing  the  payments  and  repayments  on  account  of  the 
construction  of  the  Cumberland  road,  in  the  State  of  Illinois." 

There  is  not  a,  word  in  the  certificate  sJiowing  that  a  single  dollar  of 
the  amount  expended  on  the  Cumberland  road,  within  the  limits  of  Illi- 
nois, has  ever  been  charged  against  the  two  per  cent,  fund  due  the  State 
for  road  purposes;  and  yet  the  Interior  Department  assumes  the 
responsibility,  without  authority  of  law,  and  by  encroaching  upon  the 
rights  of  the  Treasury  Department,  to  direct  the  charge  to  be  made ! 
All  there  is  in  the  statement  of  the  acting  Register  is  the  amount  of 
expenditures  on  the  Cumberland  road  for  a  period  of  ten  years,  within 
the  limits  of  Illinois,  based  upon  reports  of  engineers  filed  in  the  Treas- 
ury Department,  or  rather,  stowed  away  there.  This  information  I 
have  had  in  my  possession  since  1857,  when  I  commenced  the  prosecu- 
tion of  the  claim  of  the  State ;  and  I  am,  I  believe,  familiar  with  its 
bearing  thereon,  as  I  have  had  occasion  to  discuss  the  matter  pretty 
fully  heretofore — not  for  the  reason  it  had  any  legal  connection  with  the 
demand,  for  it  has  never  been  so  treated  in  the  Treasury  Department, 


123 

but  because  the  Interior  Secretary  was  indicating  a  purpose  to  rely 
upon  it  as  a  dernier  resort  against  the  State,  when  he  should  be  driven, 
as  he  was  by  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,  from  his  other 
grounds. 

Understanding  the  titter  fallacy  of  the  pretended  offset  against  the 
claim  of  the  State,  and  desiring  to  bring  out  the  facts  fully,  I  prepared 
the  following  resolution,  which  I  handed  to  the  Hon.  Wm.  R.  Morrison, 
who  introduced  it  into  and  procured  its  passage  through  the  House  of 
Representatives : 

"12esolvtd,  That  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  be,  and  he  hereby  is, 
requested  to  furnish  to  this  House,  at  as  early  a  day  as  possible,  infor- 
mation showing — 

1.  The  amount  received  into  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  of 
the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  net  proceeds  of  the  sales  of 
public  lands  made  in  the  State  of  Illinois  since  January  1st,  1819,  and 
reserved  in  her  enabling  act  for  road  purposes — giving  the  dates  from 
time  to  time  when  it  was  so  received,  and  the  respective  amounts  of 
each  payment  opposite  said  dates. 

£.  Whether  anything  is  charged  in  the  Treasury  Department  against 
said  fund,  or  any  offsets  exist  against  it  there ;  and  if  so,  when  and  how 
did  said  charges  occur,  or  were  said  offsets  made,  and  upon  what  basis ; 
stating  particularly  the  amounts  and  dates  of  said  charges  or  offsets, 
and  the  respective  times,  mode  or  manner  in  which  said  two  per  cent, 
fund  was  expended,  and  where,  if  at  all,  and  the  evidence  of  such  ex- 
penditure, and  the  authority  for  it." 

SECRETARY    CHASE5S   REPORT. 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  May  6,  1864. 

SIR  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  resolution  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  under  date  of  the  2nd  instant,  requesting 
me  to  furnish  information  showing  the  amount  received  into  the  Treas- 
ury of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  net  proceeds  of  the  snles 
of  the  public  lands  in  Illinois  since  January  1,  1819,  and  reserved  in 
her  enabling  act  for  road  purposes ;  and  whether  anything  is  charged 
in  this  department  against  said  fund,  or  any  offsets  exist  against  it. 

The  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Register  of  the  Treasury,  who  re- 
ports that  the  books  of  his  office  do  not  show  any  payment  made  into 
the  Treasury  on  account  of  the  fund  above  referred  to  since  January  1, 
1819.  He  suggests  that  the  records  of  the  Land  Office  would  probably 
show  all  the  facts  to  which  the  resolution  refers. 
I  am.  very  respectfully, 

S.  P.  CHASE, 

/Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  SCHUYLER    COLFAX, 

Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives. 


124 

WASHINGTON,  May  — ,  1864. 
Hon.  S.  P.  CHASE, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury: 

SIR  :  Your  report  on  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  Illinois,  transmitted 
to  the  House  of  Representatives  in  response  to  its  resolution  of  the  2nd 
inst.,  is  before  me.  If  you  will  carefully  re-examine  the  subject,  I  think 
you  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  you  have  not  fully  complied  with 
the  request  the  House  made.  The  books  of  the  Treasury  must  cer- 
tainly show  the  dates  when  and  amounts  received  from  the  public  lands 
sold  in  the  State  of  Illinois  since  January  1,  1819,  and  paid  into  your 
Department  from  time  to  time.  Two  per  cent,  upon  those  amounts  will 
be  the  amount  of  the  road  fund  to  which  said  State  is  entitled.  The 
Register  of  the  Treasury  must  therefore  be  mistaken  when  he  states  the 
books  of  his  office  do  not  show  any  payment  made  into  the  Treasury  on 
account  of  said  fund.  The  second  part  of  the  resolution  you  have  made 
no  reply  to.  It  is  in  these  words :  "  Whether  anything  is  charged  in 
the  Treasury  Department  against  said  fund,  or  any  offsets  exist  against 
it  there,  and  if  so,  when  and  how  did  said  offsets  or  charges  occur,  and 
were  the  same  made,  and  upon  what  basis — stating  particularly  the 
amounts  and  dates  of  said  charges  or  offsets,  and  the  respective  times 
or  manner  in  which  said  two  per  cent,  fund  was  expended,  and  where, 
if  at  all,  and  the  evidence  of  such  expenditure,  and  the  authority  for  it." 

I  hope,  sir,  you  will  oblige  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  myself,  by  fur- 
nishing to  the  House,  as  soon  as  possible,  an  additional  and  fuller  report 
on  the  subject.     I  am  apprised  of  the  nature  and  character  of  the  infor- 
mation which  the  Land  Department  can  furnish. 
Yery  respectfully, 

WM.  R.  MORRISON. 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  June  2,  1864. 

SIR  :  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  23rd  ult.,  asking  for  further 
information  than  that  contained  in  my  letter  of  May  6th,  in  reply  to  a 
resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  May  2,  inquiring  in  re- 
gard to  "  the  amount  received  into  the  treasury  of  the  United  States  of 
the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  net  proceeds  of  the  siles  of  the 
public  lands  made  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  since  January  1,  1819." 

The  books  of  the  Register  of  the  Treasury  do,  as  you  suggest,  show 
the  am6unts  received  into  the  Treasury  from  the  public  lauds  sold  in 
the  State  of  Illinois  since  January  1,  1819.  A  table  is  herewith  trans- 
mitted, showing  the  receipts  for  each  year,  up  to  the  present  time,  since 
1818.  The  books  of  the  Department  do  not,  however,  show  anything 
in  regard  to  such  a  fund  as  that  referred  to  in  the  resolution,  either  in 
the  way  of  receipts,  or  of  charges  or  offsets  against  it. 
1  am,  very  respectfully, 

S.  P.  CHASE, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Hon.  WM.  R.  MORRISON, 

House  of  Representatives. 


125 


Statement  of  Moneys  received  into  the  Treasury  of  the   United  States- 
from  the  sale  of  Public  Lands  in  the  State  of  Illinois. 


Amount 

1  *  ( 

-  ^ 

' 

' 
. 

Tot 

received  dui 
i 

« 

M       • 
i 

t 

it 

*  .  : 
't 
't 
( 
1 
t  • 
^ 

n 

1.                ; 
| 
I 
1 

I 

4 

A  •    •  ' 
i 

< 
i 
• 
< 
ii 
i 
4 

1   '       ; 

1 
1 
i 
I 
i 
W.' 
4'  • 
it 
«  • 
ii 
i 
ii 
ii 

al  

ing  fiscal 

' 

year  1819  

$299,461  58 
134,355  15 
75,595  19 
61,216  82 
47,600  34 
74,669  87 
50,784  49 
108,341  14 
50,717  52 
88,161  80 
198,609  72 
396,204  31 
375,260  27 
228,292  69 
374,138  51 
402,470  68 
2,461,125  03 
3,705,013  98 
1,075,239  73 
818,923  62 
1,457,955  90 
597,223  61 
326,722  20 
550,071  97 
258,463  49 
468,651  93 
530,982  98 
659,519  12 
546,929  03 
491,875  77 
268,446  49 
373,340  42 
368,414  32 
315,633  21 
719,722  16 
1,671,763  28 
962,065  88 
859,544  46 
856,169  26 
51,615  62 
7,960  53 
18,050  36 
11,432  29 
1,029  59 
8,047  28 

1820  

1821  

1822  

1823  

1824  

1825  

1826  

1827  

1828  

1829  

1830  . 

1831  

1832  

1883  

'   1834  

1835  

1836  

1837  

1838  

1839  

1840  

'"    1841  

1842  

1843  

x  1844  

1845  

1846  

1847  

1848  

i    1849  

1850  

1851  

1852  

*    1853  

1854  

1855  

1856  

1857  

"   1858  

1859  

I860  

1861  

1862  

1863  

i  

12^.897,813  04 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  REGISTER'S  OFFICE, 

June  1st,  1864. 

L.  E.  CHITTENDEN,  Register. 

As  early  as  September,  1863,  Mr.  Solger,  the  Acting  Kegister  in  the 
Treasury,  furnished  me  with  the  following  certificate,  which  will  be 
found  published  in  my  supplemental  report : 


126 

TREASURY  DEPARTMENT,  REGISTER'S  OFFICE, 

September  26,  1863. 

I  do  hereby  certify  that  there  is  no  account  on  the  books  of  this  office 
in  relation  to  the  two  per  cent,  fund  with  the  State  of  Illinois.  No  sum 
has  been  credited  to  said  State  on  account  of  said  fund,  nor  has  there 
ever  been  any  amount  charged  against  it  in  this  office. 

R.  SOLGER, 

Acting  Register. 

After  this  superabundant  evidence  that  there  is  nothing  charged  in 
the  Treasury  Department  against  the  two  per  cent,  fund  of  the  State,  it 
will  appear  incredible  that  the  Interior  Department  should  direct  such  a 
forced  construction  to  be  put  upon  the  statement  of  the  Acting  Register 
accompanying  the  account  made  out  against  her. 

That  I  should  feel  indignant  at  so  great  a  wrong  upon  the  rights  of 
my  State  is  not  a  matter  of  suprise.  With  a  view  of  showing  the  ab- 
surdity of  the  Interior  Secretary's  action,  I  addressed  him,  or  rather  his 
assistant,  a  communication,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy.  I  deemed 
it  my  duty  to  the  State  to  do  so. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  April  4,  1864. 
HON.  WM.  S.  OTTO,  Assistant  Interior  Secretary  : 

SIR: — I  have  just  been  furnished  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  Gene- 
ral Land  Office  with  a  copy  of  an  account,  which  passed  under  the 
supervision  of  the  Interior  Department,  and  was  made  up  in  compli- 
ance with  its  ruling  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  claimed  to  be  due  to  the 
State  of  Illinois,  under  the  act  of  the  third  of  March,  1857,  providing 
for  the  settlement  of  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and  the 
State  of  Mississippi  and  other  States.  That  account  shows  the  amount 
of  eaid  fund  to  be  $475,163  55,  and  there  is  charged  against  it 
$731), 879  99,  (you  say,  in  your  opinion,  under  date  of  August  31st, 
1863,  that  the  amount  appropriated  for  the  road  in  that  State  (Illinois) 
is  $606,000,  and  now  you  put  it  at  $739,879  99,  thus  largely  increasing 
it,)  leaving  a  balance  against  the  State  of  $264,716  44,  which  you  have 
affirmed  she  will  be  compelled  to  pay. 

It  is  truly  unfortunate  for  me,  as  well  as  my  State,  that  after  having 
labored  for  years  to  promote  her  interest  I  should  bring  her  out  in  debt ! 
I  suppose  I  ought  to  be  accountable  to  her  in  damages. 

While,  however,  Illinois,  has  been  thus  unfortunate,  a  very  cheering 
and  happy  result  has  accrued  to  the  General  Government,  at  this  mo- 
ment of  her  financial  distress.  You  have  all  along  insisted,  and  if  you 
had  not  the  facts  would  not  thereby  be  changed,  that  Ohio  and  Indiana 
stood  in  the  precise  relation  to  the  act  of  1857  that  Illinois  does,  and 
that  if  she  received  the  two  per  cent,  they  were  equally  entitled  to  it 
This  being  the  case,  each  is,  of  course,  ind'ebted  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment for  the  sums  expended  on  the  National  road  within  their  respect- 
ive limits,  over  and  above  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  public 
lands.  This  will  show  an  indebtedness  on  the  part  of  Ohio  to  the 
United  States  of  nearly  two  million  of  dollars,  and  of  Indiana  of  nearly 
one  million,  and  certainly  your  high  sense  of  justice,  propriety  and  rigid 


127 

impartiality  will  not  allow  you  to  claim  the  excess  from  Illinois  and  not 
from  the  other  States  named.  It  will  be  no  excuse  that  those  States 
(Ohio  and  Indiana)  have  not  asl^ed  their  accounts  to  be  made  out. 
Your  duty,  as  a  faithful  and  upright  public  officer,  requires  you  to  make 
them  out  on  the  same  principle  you  applied  to  Illinois  in  making  up  her 
account,  and  in  the  event  the  sums  not  found  due  are  not  paid  on  pre- 
sentation, which  I  presume  will  be  the  case  with  your  own  State  at 
least,  you  should  institute  suits  for  the  recovery  of  the  several  amounts. 
Illinois  will  meet  such  a  suit  in  any  court  you  may  select,  and  at  any 
time  that  will  suit  your  convenience,  and  I  pledge  her  honor  that  she 
will  file  no  technical  pleas  to  your  declaration,  but  meet  the  question  on 
the  broad  ground  of  merit.  Can  you  say  that  she  has  been  thus  dealt 
with  ? 

Information  found  its  way  promtly,  from  your  department,  over  the 
telegraphic  wires,  last  August,  when  you  decided  the  case  of  Illinois 
against  her,  that  the  decision  applied  equally  to  Ohio  and  Indiana,  your 
own  State,  and  this  was  heralded  as  conclusive  evidence  of  the  aston- 
ishing economy  and  watchfulness  of  the  Interior  Office  over  the  public 
coffers,  and  convincing  proof  of  your  moral  courage  and  unbiased  judg- 
ment, for  if  you  had  decided  otherwise  than  you  did,  you  would  have 
benefited  Indiana  as  well  as  Illinois.  Now  that  the  case  being  altered 
I  hope  it  will  not  alter  the  case,  but  that  you  will  proceed  against  Indiana, 
make  out  her  account,  and  collect  it,  as  you  propose  to  do  with  Illinois. 
I  feel  quite  sure  you  will  not  allow  any  feeling  of  State  partiality  or 
delicacy  to  induce  you  to  pause  in  the  discharge  of  this  high  duty  as  a 
government  functionary.  1  shall  anticipate  for  you  the  most  favorable 
result. 

Inasmuch,  however,  as  the  discovery  would  never  have  been  made  of 
the  indebtedness  ot  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois  to  the  General  Govern- 
ment of  a  sum  amounting  in  the  aggregate  to  nearly  three  millions  of 
dollars,  but  for  my  labors,  would  it  be  anything  but  fair  for  the  United 
States  (pardon  the  suggestion)  to  pay  me  a  reasonable  fee  therefor.  I 
see  no  other  way  of  making  myself  whole,  and  will  leave  the  disposition 
of  the  matter  to  the  known  liberality  of  your  department,  not  being 
disposed  to  present  a  formal  bill. 

I  am  only  astonished  that  while  it  is  now  claimed  Illinois  owes  the 
United  States  so  large  a  sum,  you  should  have  paid  me,  for  her,  $1,565, 
so  late  as  September  last,  on  her  Indian  reservations.  That,  however, 
was,  doubtless,  an  oversight,  and  you  will,  of  course,  include  the  amount 
in  your  account  as  paid  by  mistake. 

Being  profoundly  grateful  that,  while  I  have  injured  my  own  State  I 
have  at  least  been  fortunate  enough  to  add  a  claim,  covering  such  a  large 
sum,  to  the  National  coffers;  and  believing  also  that  your  promptness  in 
the  discharge  of  your  official  duties,  of  which  I  have  had  the  most  abun- 
dant evidence,  will  prompt  you  at  oneo  to  collect  the  same,  I  congratu- 
late the  country  upon  the  auspicious  event. 

With  the  view  that  Congress  may  be  apprised  of  the  fact  that  such  a 
large  amount  is  thus  unexpectedly  to  come  soon  into  the  treasury,  thereby 
lessening  the  necessity  for  raising  revenue,  and  likewise  with  the  view 
of  conveying  early  information  to  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois  of  the  re- 
spective sums  they  will  be  required  to  pay  over  to  the  United  States,  I 


128 

shall  publish  a  copy  of  this  communication  in  advance  of  my  report  to 
the  Governor  of  my  State. 

With  great  consideration,  I  remain,  sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

I.  N.  MORRIS, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  Illinois. 

P.  S.  You  certainly  will  not  insist  that  Indiana  is  equally  entitled  to 
the  benefits  of  the  act  of  1857  with  Illinois,  and  she  not  be  equally  lia- 
ble with  her  to  pay  to  the  General  Government  the  amount  expended 
over  it  on  the  National  road  within  her  limits.  You  stood  ready  to  take 
for  your  own  State  that  fund  if  Illinois  received  it,  and  I  suppose  are 
equally  ready  to  make  her  pay  back  the  overplus. 

I.  N.  MORRIS. 
THE  PRESIDENT'S  VIEWS. 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  a  note,  addressed  by  the  President  to  the 
Interior  Secretary,  at  the  time  of  transmitting  to  that  officer  the  papers 
pertaining  to  the  matter  which  I  submitted  to  his  Excellency  on  behalf 
of  the  State.  While  his  Excellency  expresses  his  own  view  of  the  law 
clearly,  he  very  properly  did  not  feel  justified  in  giving  an  instruction 
to  the  Secretary,  in  advance,  to  adopt  his  construction. 

HON.  INTERIOR  SECRETARY  : 

Illinois  has  again  presented  her  claim  for  the  two  per  cent.  I  do  not 
think  it  very  gracious  in  her  to  do  so  at  this  time  of  our  National 
troubles.  My  opinion  of  the  law  has  undergone  no  change.  I  think 
the  law  is  with  the  State.  1  therefore  desire  you  to  take  up  the  case 
and  act  upon  it  as  you  may  think  the  law  is. 

A.  LINCOLN. 

LETTER   OF   HON.  P.  B.  FOUKE. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  February  20,  1864. 

DEAR  SIR — In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  I  will  state  that  I  have  examined' 
your  report  on  the  two  per  cent,  fund  due  from  the  United  States  to  the 
State  of  Illinois,  submitted  to  Governor  Yates  in  April,  1863,  and  par- 
ticularly that  part  of  it  in  which  you  refer,  on  the  20th  and  21st  pages, 
to  an  interview  I  had  with  the  President,  and  what  was  said  between 
us  on  the  subject  at  that  interview,  held  on  the  23d  of  March,  1863, 
when  I  read  to  him  your  written  statement,  bearing  date  March  19, 
1863,  and  I  fully  indorse  and  sustain  you  in  all  the  facts  which  you  have 
presented.  They  transpired  as  you  represent  them.  The  President 
stated  to  me  what  you  say  he  did,  and  left  no  doubt  on  my  mind  that 
Illinois  was  entitled  to  the  money  she  claimed,  according  to  his  view  of 
the  laws  relating  thereto. 

I  will  also  state  that  after  my  interview  with  the  President,  I  had 
another  with  the  Hon.  John  P.  Usher,  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  who 
treated  me  with  great  courtesy  and  kindness,  which  terminated  by  his 
leaving  the  impression  on  my  mind  that  his  view  of  the  laws  upon 
which  are  based  the  claim  of  Illinois,  were  the  same  as  those  which  the 
President  had  expressed  to  me. 

Yours,  very  truly,  P.  B.  FOUKE. 

HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS. 


129 

The  same  impression  left  by  Judge  Usher,  the  Interior  Secretary,  on 
the  mind  of  Mr.  Fouke,  he  left  on  my  mind  at  more  than  one  interview, 
and  he  has  also  left  the  same  impression  on  the  minds  of  others.  There 
is  no  doubt  that  his  legal  opinion  is  that  the  law  is  with  the  State. 
Hence  he  threw  the  whole  responsibility  of  resisting  the  claim  upon  his 
assistant,  while  he  stood  in  the  back  ground  himself.  It  is  a  most  sig- 
nificant fact  that  no  principal  officer  at  "Washington  has  been  willing  to 
stake  his  legal  reputation  on  a  decision  against  the  State.  "Why  did  not 
the  Interior  Secretary  meet  the  question  himself,  and  not  put  his  assist- 
ant between  him  and  Illinois?  The  reason  is  obvious. 

One  statement  in  my  report  referred  to  by  Col.  Fouke,  in  his  letter, 
is  as  follows : 

"  He,  (meaning  the  President)  also  said  to  Col.  Fonke  that  he  had 
talked  with  Mr.  Usher,  his  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  on  the  subject,  and 
that  his  Secretary  entertained  precisely  the  same  view  of  the  laws  upon 
•which  the  claim  of  the  State  is  based  as  he  himself  did,  that  he,  the 
Secretary,  had  so  said  to  him." 

PROTEST   AND   PETITION   FOE   RE-HEARING. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  April  4,  1864. 
Hon.  J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Corner  Gen.  Land  Office: 

SIR — I  have  to-day  received  from  you  a  copy  of  the  statement  of  an 
account  made  out  in  your  office,  and  subjected  to  the  supervision  of  the 
Interior  Department,  of  the  two  per  cent,  fund  arising  from  the  net 
proceeds  of  the  sales  of  the  public  lands  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  claimed 
by  me  as  the  agent  and  attorney  of  said  State  to  be  due  and  payable  to 
her  under  the  provisions  of  an  act  approved  March  3,  1857,  providing 
for  the  settlement  of  certain  accounts  between  the  United  States  and 
the  State  of  Mississippi  and  other  states. 

You  give  the  gross  amount  of  said  two  per  cent,  fund  at  $475,163  55, 
and  charge  against  it  $739,879  99,  on  account  of  alledged  expenditures 
on  the  Cumberland  road — thus  showing  a  balance  against  the  State  of 
$264,716  44. 

To  the  account  thus  stated,  I  avail  myself  of  the  immediate  occasion 
of  its  receipt  to  enter,  in  the  name  of  Illinois,  her  deliberate  and  solemn 
protest,  and  to  affirm  and  deny,  in  her  behalf,  that  she  is  bound  or  con- 
cluded thereby,  for  the  following  among  other  reasons : 

Firstly  —  Because  said  account  is  not  stated,  as  said  act  of  1857, 
requires,  but  in  contravention  thereof  in  this,  that  the  said  act  requires 
the  said  two  per  cent,  to  be  "  stated,  allowed  and  paid,"  and  does  not 
authorize  or  allow  the  said  alledged  expenditures  on  the  National  road 
to  be  charged  against  it  or  any  off-set  to  be  made  on  account  of  said 
expenditures  on  said  road  or  otherwise ;  and  also  in  this,  that  said  two 
per  cent,  was  never  expended,  or  any  part  thereof,  by  Congress,  as  trus- 
tee, in  the  mode  or  manner  required  by  the  conditions  of  the  trust 
reposed  by  the  State  in  that  body  by  the  terms  of  the  compact  between 
her  and  the  general  government. 

Secondly  —  Because  said  account  does  not  give  the  dates,  places  or 
particulars,  when,  \vhere  or  how  said  fund  was  expended,  so  that  it  can 
—13 


130 

be  determined  with  any  accuracy  that  it  was  expended  in  conformity 
with  the  trust  Congress  held. 

Thirdly  —  Because  said  account,  as  stated,  is  vague  and  uncertain, 
oppressive  and  unjust  to  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  wholly  unauthorized 
by  any  law. 

Fourthly  —  Because  said  account  was  hurriedly  made  up,  without 
giving  the  State  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  on  the  rule  or  principle 
which  should  have  been  adopted  and  followed  in  stating  it. 

All  other  exceptions  to  said  account,  as  made  up,  are  reserved  by  the 
State  and  excepted  to.  I.  N.  MORRIS, 

Agent  and  Attorney  for  Illinois. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  April  4,  1864. 
HON.  I.  N.  MORRIS,  Agent  and  Attorney  for  Illinois,  Present: 

Sm  —  Your  protest  of  this  date  against  the  form  adopted  in  stating 
the  Illinois  reserved  two  per  cent,  fund  has  been  received  and  placed  on 
file.     Herewith  I  inclose  a  copy  of  any  letter  of  this  date  to  the  First 
Comptroller,  transmitting  a  copy  of  your  letter  for  a  re-hearii:g. 
Yery  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 

WASHINGTON  CITY,  April  4,  1864. 
HON.  JAMES  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner  General  Land  Office: 

SIR  —  In  behalf  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  I  respectfully  petition  your 
Honor  for  a  re-hearing  in  the  matter  of  the  application  of  said  State  for 
the  payment  of  the  two  per  cent,  arising  from  the  net  proceeds  of  the 
sales  of  the  public  lands,  made  within  her  limits,  since  January  1,  1819, 
reserved  to  be  expended  by  Congress,  as  trustee,  in  the  compact 
between  her  and  the  general  government,  in  the  construction  of  roads 
leading  to  said  State,  the  account  of  which  has  been  stated  in  a  manner 
unauthorized,  as  she  claims,  by  law,  and  as  she  hopes  to  establish  or 
make  manifest  if  a  re-hearing  is  granted. 

1. 1ST.  MORRIS, 
Agent  and  Attorney  for  said  State  of  Illinois. 

GENERAL  LAND  OFFICE,  April  4,  1864. 
HON.  R.  "W.  TAYLOR,  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury: 
SIR — I  inclose  herewith  a  copy  of  a  letter  received  this  day  from  the 
Hon.  I.  N.  Morris,  agent  and  attorney  for  Illinois,  asking  for  a  re-hear- 
ing in  the  case  of  the  Illinois  reserved  two  per  cent,  fund,  and  he  ver- 
bally requested  that  no  action  be  taken  thereon  at  the  present  time. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

(Signed)  J.  M.  EDMUNDS,  Commissioner. 

After  submitting  the  protest  and  petition  for  re-hearing,  I  had  per- 
sonal interviews  with  the  Land  Commissioner  and  First  Comptroller  of 
the  Treasury,  each  of  whom  was  very  courteous,  and  kindly  consented 
to  allow  me  to  submit  my  arguments  at  such  time  as  was  convenient. 
I  therefore  postponed  the  further  prosecution  of  the  claim  until  this 


131 

4 

winter.  In  two  or  three  weeks  I  shall  again  repair  to  Washington  and 
renew  my  labors.  The  comptroller  has  the  power  to  review  the 
account,  as  stated,  and  to  change  it  as  his  mind  may  suggest  is  right. 
There  must  at  some  period  not  distant,  be  a  termination  to  technical 
pleas,  and  then  the  State  will  obtain  her  rights,  and  substantial  justice 
will  be  done. 

I  cannot  close  this  report  without  renewing  the  expression  of  my 
continued  confidence  in  the  determination  on  the  part  of  the  President 
to  see  that  the  State  is  fairly  dealt  with,  and  without  also  expressing  my 
acknowledgments  for  the  personal  kindness  and  respect  with  which  he 
has  uniformly  treated  me. 

All  of  which  is  respectfully  submitted.  I.  N.  MOKRIS. 

QUINCY,  December  24, 1864. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOI9-URBANA 


30112045944409 


J 


